NO. 30117
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
KENNETH WAYNE MATHISON, Petitioner,
vs.
HAWAII
PAROLING AUTHORITY, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by
petitioner Kenneth Wayne Mathison and the papers in
support, it appears that providing inmates with discovery of minimum
term fixing materials is discretionary
under the Hawaii Paroling Authority's administrative rules and is not
mandated by
HRPP Rule 16. See HAR
§ 23-700-22(g) ("An inmate may be afforded the opportunity,
subject to security
considerations, to consider and review materials the [Hawaii Paroling]
Authority has that pertain to the fixing of the
inmate's minimum term."); HRPP Rule 1 ("[The HRPP] rules shall govern
the procedure [in all penal proceedings] in the
courts of the State[.]"). Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to
mandamus relief. See
HRS § 602-5(3) (Supp.
2008) (The supreme court has jurisdiction and power to issue writs of
mandamus
directed to public officers to compel them to fulfill the duties of
their
offices.); 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 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, October 30, 2009.