Jenkins v. Hawaii Paroling Authority Official

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0002897 27-AUG-2013 01:53 PM SCPW-13-0002897 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I WENDELL H. JENKINS, Petitioner, vs. HAWAI#I PAROLING AUTHORITY OFFICIAL, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NO. 96-0127) ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Wendell H. Jenkins application for a writ of mandamus, filed on August 19, 2013, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to a second parole revocation hearing and has alternative means to obtain relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action); In re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawai#i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999) (mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual s claim is clear and certain, the official s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the application for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the application for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 27, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.