Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-12-0001118
14-JAN-2013
02:21 PM
SCPW-12-0001118
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,
vs.
BERT Y. MATSUOKA, MICHAEL A. TOWN, JOYCE MATSUMORI-HOSHIJO,
of the Hawai#i Paroling Authority, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Petitioner Michael C. Tierney submitted a petition for
a writ of mandamus, which was filed on December 27, 2012.
According to petitioner, a Hawai#i Paroling Authority (“HPA”)
board member purportedly attempted to extort money from him and
his family during his March 28, 2012 parole board hearing but he
informed the member that his family and friends are dead and he
has no money. Petitioner contends that the HPA is denying him
parole because he has no family, friends or money. He seeks an
order directing the HPA to (1) parole him to a clean and sober
house, (2) provide him welfare, medical aid and a bus pass, and
(3) discharge him from his sentence.
Upon consideration of the petition and the document
attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, it appears
that petitioner has not demonstrated that his allegations of
extortion and denial of parole based on lack of family, friends
or money have merit. In addition, petitioner has not
demonstrated that the HPA owes him a duty to parole him to a
clean and sober house, provide him welfare, medical aid and a bus
pass, and discharge him from his sentence. See HRS § 706-670(4)
(1993) (the granting of parole is within the discretion of the
HPA and is not a ministerial duty subject to mandamus relief).
Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to mandamus 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); 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); Salling v.
Moon, 76 Hawai#i 273, 274 n.3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994)
(“A duty is ministerial where the law prescribes and defines the
2
duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to
leave nothing to the exercise of discretion and judgment.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 14, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
3