Labatte v. Luke

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000936 21-DEC-2015 01:20 PM SCPW-15-0000936 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I LYMAN K. LABATTE, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE LINDA LUKE, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge, and STATE OF HAWAI#I and DUSTIN F.K. DAWSON, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1DCW-15-0000082) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner Lyman K. LaBatte’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on December 14, 2015, and the record, it appears that Petitioner is not a party to the underlying criminal proceeding and, under the circumstances of this case, lacks standing to seek relief therein. See, e.g., Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of Haw. Sup. Ct., 91 Hawai#i 51, 58, 979 P.2d 1077, 1084 (1999) (a complainant does not have standing to participate in the disciplinary process because “one does not have standing to assert a violation of rights belonging to another;” the complainant’s only function in the disciplinary process is to supply evidence of the alleged attorney malfeasance). Even if Petitioner had standing, he fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested writ of mandamus. 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; such a writ is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which he or she has a legal duty to act). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 21, 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.