Abordo v. Immediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaii

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000033 02-FEB-2015 12:12 PM SCPW-15-0000033 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I EDMUND M. ABORDO, Petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Court, and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY and SHARI KIMOTO, MAINLAND BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-13-0001474; CIV. NO. 11-1-2228) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner Edmund M. Abordo’s document entitled “Plaintiff-Appellant’s Writ of Mandamus for Violation of the Rules [of] the Court and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” filed on January 20, 2015, and the record, it appears that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to an immediate decision in CAAP-13-0001474 and, therefore, mandamus relief is not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 2, 2015. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 2

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.