Background
Stephen Richard Kenny, acting as petitioner, sought review of a decision from the Hawaiʻi Intermediate Court of Appeals (CAAP-25-0000729; Case No. 2DSS-25-0000307) by filing an application for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi. After the court acted on that application, Kenny filed a series of documents — at docket entries 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 — which the court construed at least in part as motions for reconsideration of the certiorari determination.
The underlying trial-court matter bore a designation suggesting a district court summary proceeding, and the ICA’s disposition prompted Kenny’s certiorari petition. The volume of post-ruling filings by Kenny led the court to address both the procedural propriety of reconsideration motions in this context and the need to terminate further unauthorized filings.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi, with Chief Justice Devens writing for a five-justice panel (including an assigned circuit judge sitting by reason of vacancy), denied all of Kenny’s motions for reconsideration. The court grounded its denial in Rule 40.1(h) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (effective 2026), which expressly provides that neither the acceptance nor the 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 the case upon entry of the order. This filing bar was apparently prompted by the unusually high number of successive submissions Kenny had made following the court’s certiorari ruling.
Key Takeaways
- Under newly effective HRAP Rule 40.1(h) (2026), certiorari outcomes — whether acceptance or rejection — are categorically unreviewable by motion for reconsideration in the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court.
- The court exercised its authority to impose a prospective filing bar on a litigant whose repeated post-ruling submissions constituted an abuse of the appellate process.
- The order is administrative and procedural in character; it does not address the merits of the underlying dispute between Kenny and Roberts.
Why It Matters
This order highlights the finality built into Hawaiʻi’s certiorari process under the 2026 revision to HRAP Rule 40.1(h). Practitioners should be aware that once the supreme court acts on a certiorari application — in either direction — the door to reconsideration is firmly closed, and repeated attempts to reopen that question risk not only denial but also a court-imposed prohibition on further filings.
The case also serves as a reminder that appellate courts retain inherent authority to manage their dockets and protect against vexatious or repetitive filings, even from self-represented litigants. Attorneys advising clients who have received an adverse certiorari ruling in Hawaiʻi should counsel them accordingly.