Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-13-0000130
20-MAR-2013
02:39 PM
SCPW-13-0000130
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s
“Motion for Release Pending Disposition of Post Conviction
Petition Rule 40 [HRAP 23]”, filed on March 4, 2013, which we
review as a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the document
attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, it appears
that petitioner is not entitled to the requested relief.
Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the State of Hawai#i owes
him a duty to release him from custody and provide him gate money
and clothes pending the disposition of his HRPP Rule 40
proceeding and petitioner has alternative means to seek relief.
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) (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 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 for a
writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 20, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
2