ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration
of Michael Tierney's letter to the supreme court, which is deemed a
petition for a writ of mandamus, it
appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he sought and was
denied relief from the director of public safety. Therefore, petitioner
is not entitled to mandamus relief. See In Re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii
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.). Accordingly,
IT
IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall file petitioner's
letter as a petition for a writ of
mandamus without payment of the filing fee.
IT
IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without
prejudice to petitioner seeking
relief from the director of public safety.
DATED:
Honolulu,
Hawai‘i, June 23, 2008.