Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-16-0000028
06-APR-2016
08:01 AM
SCPW-16-0000028
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
CHRISTOPHER LEE SLAVICK, Petitioner,
vs.
GARY KAPLAN, FRANCIS SEQUEIRA, and MONICA CHUN
at the HALAWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Christopher Lee
Slavick’s motion for writ of mandamus, filed on January 15, 2016,
which we review as a petition for writ of mandamus, and the
record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he
has a clear and indisputable right to copies of the requested
documents without payment or that he has sought relief through
any applicable administrative process. Petitioner, therefore,
has not demonstrated that he is entitled to the requested writ of
mandamus. 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 petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the
appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus
without payment of the filing fee.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 6, 2016.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2
Slavick v. Kaplan
Combined Opinion