Background
Stephen Richard Kenny, as petitioner and plaintiff-appellant, sought a writ of certiorari in the Hawaii Supreme Court from a ruling of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in case CAAP-25-0000727, which arose from district court case 2DSS-25-0000308. After the court acted on his certiorari application, Kenny filed a series of documents at nine successive docket entries (dkt. 9 through 25), which the court construed at least in part as motions for reconsideration of that action.
The voluminous and repetitive filings prompted the court to address not only the merits of the reconsideration requests but also the propriety of further submissions by Kenny in the proceeding.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Supreme Court, in a unanimous order signed by Chief Justice Devens and Justices McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Circuit Judge Tonaki (sitting by assignment), denied all of Kenny’s motions for reconsideration. The court grounded its ruling in Rule 40.1(h) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (effective 2026), which expressly provides that neither acceptance nor rejection of a certiorari application is subject to a motion for reconsideration in the supreme court.
In addition, the court ordered the appellate clerk to refuse any further filings from Kenny in this case following entry of the order, effectively closing the matter against additional submissions from the petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- Under HRAP Rule 40.1(h) (2026), a supreme court certiorari decision — whether granting or denying the writ — is not subject to reconsideration; such motions will be denied as a matter of rule.
- Hawaii appellate courts retain authority to impose filing restrictions on a party whose repeated submissions abuse the appellate process, including directing the clerk not to accept further filings.
- Documents filed pro se that do not neatly fit a recognized motion category will be construed by the court according to their apparent purpose — here, as reconsideration motions — and ruled on accordingly.
Why It Matters
This order highlights a firm procedural limit built into Hawaii’s 2026 appellate rules: once the supreme court acts on a certiorari application, the decision is final and unreviewable within that court. Practitioners — and self-represented litigants in particular — should understand that filing successive reconsideration motions after a certiorari ruling is not merely futile but may invite a filing-restriction order that forecloses all further access to the court in the case.
The court’s willingness to bar future filings underscores its authority to manage its docket against serial or vexatious submissions, a tool that may be used with increasing frequency as courts apply the updated HRAP provisions.