Background
This case arose from a domestic relations proceeding in the Second Circuit (Case No. 2DRC-25-0000912) in which Nicole Moreau-Brown was the plaintiff-appellee and Stephen Richard Kenny was the defendant-appellant. Kenny sought review by the Hawaii Supreme Court by petitioning for a writ of certiorari following an adverse ruling at the Intermediate Court of Appeals (CAAP-25-0000763).
After the Supreme Court acted on the certiorari petition, Kenny filed a series of documents at nine separate docket entries (Dkt. 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27). The court construed these filings, at least in part, as motions for reconsideration of the court’s disposition of his certiorari application.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi denied all of Kenny’s motions for reconsideration. The court cited Rule 40.1(h) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (effective 2026), which expressly prohibits motions for reconsideration directed at a supreme court’s acceptance or rejection of a certiorari application. The repeated filings were therefore procedurally foreclosed as a matter of rule.
In addition to denying the motions, the court ordered the appellate clerk to refuse any further filings from Kenny in this case effective upon entry of the order. The order was unanimous, signed by Chief Justice Devens, Justices McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, and Circuit Judge Tonaki sitting by assignment due to a vacancy.
Key Takeaways
- Under Hawaii Rule of Appellate Procedure 40.1(h) (eff. 2026), neither acceptance nor rejection of a certiorari application is subject to a motion for reconsideration in the supreme court.
- Courts retain authority to bar a party from making further filings in a concluded case when that party has repeatedly submitted unauthorized or meritless documents.
- Repeated pro se filings after a case is closed will not revive or delay finality of the appellate court’s disposition.
Why It Matters
This brief but firm order illustrates the Hawaii Supreme Court’s willingness to impose filing restrictions on litigants who persist in submitting procedurally improper documents after a case has been resolved. For practitioners, the order underscores that the newly effective 2026 version of HRAP Rule 40.1(h) forecloses any attempt to seek reconsideration of a certiorari decision, making finality at the certiorari stage absolute.
The filing bar entered here serves as a reminder that appellate courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets and protect the integrity of final judgments. Attorneys advising clients who have exhausted certiorari review in Hawaii should be prepared to explain that no further avenue for reconsideration exists at that level.