The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on June 2, 2026, denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Milica Barjaktarovic. This decision affects Barjaktarovic directly, as it halts her attempts to seek relief through this legal avenue. The court's ruling also emphasizes the importance of demonstrating a clear right to relief in such petitions.
Barjaktarovic filed her petition on July 22, 2025, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which allows individuals to waive court fees due to financial hardship. However, the court determined that she did not meet the necessary criteria to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus. This ruling is significant as it highlights the stringent requirements for such petitions in Hawaii's legal system.
The parties involved in this case include Milica Barjaktarovic, the petitioner, and the State of Hawaii, which is the respondent. The dispute arose when Barjaktarovic sought a writ of mandamus to compel a lower court to act in her favor. The case was filed under docket number SCPW-25-0000529, and it reached the Hawaii Supreme Court after Barjaktarovic's initial attempts to secure relief were unsuccessful in lower courts.
The court's ruling was delivered by Chief Justice Vladimir P. Devens, along with Justices Sabrina S. McKenna and Todd W. Eddins. They stated, "Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to relief." This statement underscores the court's position that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish a compelling reason for the court to intervene.
In addition to denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, the court also waived the filing fee for Barjaktarovic, allowing her to proceed without financial burden. Furthermore, the court declared that several motions filed by Barjaktarovic were denied as moot, indicating that they no longer had relevance following the denial of her primary petition.
One of the most significant aspects of the ruling is that the appellate clerk is instructed not to accept any further filings from Barjaktarovic in this case effective June 15, 2026. This means that Barjaktarovic will be unable to continue pursuing her claims through this particular legal channel, effectively closing the door on her current efforts.
The impact of this ruling is substantial for Barjaktarovic, as it limits her options for seeking judicial relief in the future. It serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards that petitioners must meet when seeking extraordinary relief through a writ of mandamus. This case may also influence how future petitions are filed in Hawaii, as individuals may need to be more diligent in demonstrating their right to relief.
Going forward, Barjaktarovic may explore other legal avenues to address her grievances, but the court's decision in this case sets a clear precedent regarding the necessity of establishing a strong basis for relief. The ruling emphasizes that without a clear and indisputable right to relief, courts may deny such petitions outright.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the court's ruling on a writ of mandamus is typically considered final. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions that Barjaktarovic might pursue. However, the ruling effectively concludes her current legal efforts in this matter.