NO. 30214
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
DANIEL JAMES OUREN, Petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Daniel James Ouren's November 30, 2009 letter to
the supreme court and supporting papers, which
we treat as a petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that
petitioner fails to present a clear and certain claim for relief.
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.); 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.); In Re
Disciplinary Bd. Of Hawai‘i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai‘i
363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999) (Disciplinary counsel's duties are
owed to the
supreme court, not to the individual complainant; the duties involve
judgment and discretion and are
not ministerial.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus shall be processed
without payment of the filing fee.
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai‘i, December 15, 2009.