NO. 28193
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
GEORGE MIYASHIRO, Petitioner,
vs.
THE
HONORABLE GEORGE M. MASUOKA, Respondent.
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, and Nakayama, JJ., and Intermediate
Court
of Appeals Judge Nakamura, in place of Duffy, J.,
recused,
and Acoba, J., dissenting)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by
petitioner George Miyashiro and the papers in support,
it appears that there is no federal or state constitutional right to pro
hac vice
appearance of counsel before any Hawai`i state court. See Bank of Hawaii v.
Kunimoto, 91 Hawai`i 372, 388, 984 P.2d 1198, 1214 (1999).
Granting Eugene Albertini full pro
hac vice status in Civil No. 04-1-0211 was within the discretion
of the circuit judge, see
RSCSH 1.9, and the refusal to do
so for the reasons for which pro hac vice appearance was
initially denied was not a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai`i
200,
204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)(A writ of mandamus 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. Such a writ is not intended to supersede the legal
discretionary
authority of the lower court. Where a court has discretion to act,
mandamus will
not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion,
even when
the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or
her
jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion, or has
refused to act on a subject properly before the court under
circumstances in which
it has a legal duty to act.). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai`i, November 1, 2006.
David J. Gierlach,
for petitioner
I dissent and
would grant the petition. (J. Acoba)