In re contested case hearing re conservation district use application

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SCOT-17-0000811 Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCOT-17-0000811 04-JAN-2018 09:07 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF CONTESTED CASE HEARING RE CONSERVATION DISTRICT USE APPLICATION (CDUA) HA-3568 FOR THE THIRTY METER TELESCOPE AT THE MAUNA KEA SCIENCE RESERVE, KA#OHE MAUKA, HAMAKUA, HAWAII, TMK (3)404015:009 _________________________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (BLNR-CC-16-002 (Agency Appeal)) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR NON-PAYMENT OF FILING FEE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Castagnetti, in place of Nakayama, J., recused) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) appellant Temple of Lono filed a notice of appeal on November 2, 2017; (2) appellant did not pay the filing fee or file a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal; (3) by letter dated November 3, 2017, the appellate clerk informed appellant that (a) appellant did not pay the filing fees due upon submission of the notice of appeal as set forth under Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 3(a) or request a fee waiver by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to HRAP Rule 24, (b) appellant had until November 13, 2017 to pay the filing fee, (c) if the filing fee was not paid, the matter would be brought to the court’s attention for such action as the court deems proper pursuant to HRAP Rule 3(a), and (d) the appeal may be dismissed; and (4) appellant has not responded to the letter, paid the filing fee, or submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 4, 2018. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti 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.