Samoa v. Fujino
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-19-0000058 19-FEB-2019 12:48 PM SCPW-19-0000058 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ WESLEY SAMOA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MELVIN H. FUJINO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge, and STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent. _________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 3CPC-18-0000724) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Wesley Samoa’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on January 25, 2019, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief and that he lacks alternative means to seek relief. As to petitioner’s request for the withdrawal of deputy public defender Ann Datta as his counsel and the authorization of Barry L. Sooalo as his counsel, it appears that former counsel is no longer representing petitioner and that the circuit court has authorized Mr. Sooalo to represent petitioner. As to petitioner’s request for the disqualification of the respondent judge from participating in any further proceedings in Case No. 3CPC-180000724 and for the transfer of the case to another judge, it appears that petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of HRS § 601-7(b) before this court and has alternative means to seek such relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 19, 2019. /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.
