Kaopua v. Kollar

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-19-0000087 25-FEB-2019 01:57 PM SCPW-19-0000087 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I HERMAN-LEE KAOPUA, SR., Petitioner, vs. JUSTIN F. KOLLAR, in his capacity as Prosecuting Attorney, County of Kaua#i; and STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. NO. 18-1-0001) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Herman-Lee Kaopua, Sr.’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on February 11, 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 or that he lacks alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. 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); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (with respect to a public official, 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 petition for writ of mandamus is denied. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 25, 2019. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 2