Warner v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000513 23-JUN-2020 01:31 PM SCPW-15-0000513 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ MATTHEW J. WARNER, Petitioner, vs. HAWAI#I PAROLING AUTHORITY, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND/OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner Matthew J. Warner’s application for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus, respondent Hawai#i Paroling Authority’s response, the respective supporting documents, and the record, it appears that the requested extraordinary writ is not warranted. 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); In re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawai#i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999) (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 is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 23, 2020. /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.