Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-14-0000567
24-APR-2014
11:18 AM
SCPW-14-0000567
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent,
vs.
ROY ALAN COSTA, Petitioner.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CR. NO. 00-1-0253)
ORDER DENYING “DEFENDANT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
OF ALL CHARGES TOWARD COURTS UNTIMELY RESPONSE”
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and
Circuit Judge Nakasone, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner Roy Costa’s document
entitled “Defendant Motion for Dismissal of All Charges Toward
Courts Untimely Response,” which was filed as a petition for a
writ of mandamus on April 15, 2014, 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. An extraordinary writ,
therefore, 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). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate
court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without
payment of the filing fee.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is
denied.
IT IS HEREBY FINALLY ORDERED that the appellate clerks’
office shall not accept any further filings from petitioner in
this closed proceeding.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 24, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone