Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-13-0003439
27-NOV-2013
10:15 AM
SCPW-13-0003439
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
JAMES P. CALZETTA,
Petitioner,
vs.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(SC-10-1-0731)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
By letter to the Chief Justice, which was filed as a
petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioner James P. Calzetta
appears to be challenging a 2010 order declaring him a vexatious
litigant, and asks the court to “restore [his] access to the
courts.” Upon consideration of the petition, the documents
submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that
petitioner is not entitled to the requested relief. Petitioner
fails to demonstrate that he is being denied the opportunity to
seek court approval to file a new case or that he attempted to
file a new case and was denied the opportunity. Under these
circumstances, the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus 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); 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; rather, it is meant to restrain a
judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his
or her jurisdiction). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 27, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
2