Abordo v. Dep't of Pub. Safety

• Docket Number: CAAP-19-0000367
• Decision Date: 16 January 2024
• Parties: EDMUND M. ABORDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS) MAINLAND BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR SHAIR KIMOTO, CCA WARDEN TODD THOMAS, MAIL ROOM CLERK FOR SCC C. ROBERTSON, CCA UNIT MANAGER R. COOK, C/O C. HOSKINS, Defendants-Appellees and CEDRIC AH SING, Plaintiff-Appellee,
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

1

EDMUND M. ABORDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, and CEDRIC AH SING, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS) MAINLAND BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR SHAIR KIMOTO, CCA WARDEN TODD THOMAS, MAIL ROOM CLERK FOR SCC C. ROBERTSON, CCA UNIT MANAGER R. COOK, C/O C. HOSKINS, Defendants-Appellees

No. CAAP-19-0000367

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii

January 16, 2024

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 12-1-2207)

On the briefs:

Edmund M. Abordo, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se.

Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Edmund M. Abordo, self-represented, (Abordo) appeals from the November 27, 2019 Judgment entered (on temporary remand) by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).^[1] Judgment was entered against Abordo and Plaintiff-Appellee Cedric Ah Sing, and in favor of Defendants-Appellees Department of Public Safety (DPS), DPS Mainland Branch Administrator Shari Kimoto, Warden Todd Thomas, Mail Room Clerk C. Robertson, Correctional Officer C. Hoskins, and Unit Manager

2

R. Cook (collectively, Defendants). Abordo also appears to challenge: (1) the December 21, 2018 Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice for Failure to Prosecute (Dismissal Order); and (2) the May 13, 2019 Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Reinstate the Plaintiff's Case Per the Order of the Court Dismissing Without Prejudice Non-Hearing Motion (Order Denying Reinstatement).

Abordo does not state points of error in compliance with Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4), instead raising several questions, some of which cannot be discerned as alleging error.^[2] It appears that Abordo contends that: (1) the Circuit Court abused its discretion in entering the Dismissal Order because the Circuit Court did not serve the Defendants with Abordo's complaint; and (2) the Circuit Court abused its discretion in entering the Order Denying Reinstatement because the order was entered in retaliation for Abordo's filing of a petition for writ of mandamus.

Upon careful review of the record and the submissions of the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by Abordo, we resolve Abordo's appeal as follows:

(1) Abordo contends, in essence, that the Circuit Court abused its discretion in dismissing Abordo's complaint without prejudice for lack of...