FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Damarlane v Pohnpei State Court, 6 FSM Intrm. 561 (Pon. 1994)

KADALINO DAMARLANE,
Petitioner,

vs.

POHNPEI STATE COURT, APPELLATE
JUDGES IN PON. APP. NO. 4-91,
Respondents,

vs.

POHNPEI STATE LEGISLATURE,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1994-121

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Andon L. Amaraich
Associate Justice
Decided: October 27, 1994

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner:
Mary Berman, Esq.
P.O. Box 163
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Respondents:
Richard L. Counts, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Pohnpei Attorney General
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * *

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure - Pleadings
A court has discretion to determine whether it is just to allow a party to serve additional, supplemental pleadings upon an opposing party based on happenings since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. Damarlane v. Pohnpei State Court, 6 FSM Intrm. 561, 563 (Pon. 1994).

Civil Procedure - Pleadings
Where a party has obtained all the relief he originally requested it is not just for a court to allow that party to supplement his pleadings to seek additional relief because he is dissatisfied with the relief he received. Damarlane v. Pohnpei State Court, 6 FSM Intrm. 561, 563 (Pon. 1994).

Mandamus
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy designed to prevent public officials from committing clear abuses of power. As such, mandamus relief cannot be used as a precaution against future events that may never occur. Damarlane v. Pohnpei State Court, 6 FSM Intrm. 561, 563-64 (Pon. 1994).

* * *

COURT'S OPINION

ANDON L. AMARAICH, Associate Justice:

In this petition, filed September 2, 1994, Petitioner seeks mandamus relief from this Court to compel certain actions of the Pohnpei State Court. Specifically, Petitioner requests the following:

(1) a writ to compel the Pohnpei State Appellate Court to declare its decision in the case Damarlane v. Pohnpei State Legislature, Pon. App. No. 4-91, within 10 days.

In the alternative, or if the Pohnpei State Appellate Court fails, or refuses, or is unable to issue its decision in this case within 10 days, the Plaintiff Mr. Damarlane requests the following relief from the FSM Court:

(2) a writ to compel the Pohnpei State Appellate Court to transfer the entire file in the case Damarlane v. Pohnpei State Legislature, Pon. App. No. 4-91 to the FSM Appellate Court.

On September 23, 1994, during the pendency of the instant petition, the Pohnpei State Appellate Court issued its opinion in Damarlane v. Pohnpei State Legislature, Pon. App. No. 4-91. In light of this fact, both of Petitioner's requested grounds for mandamus relief have been satisfied and the petition is thereby rendered moot.

Since the issuance of the opinion in the state court action, however, Petitioner has filed a Motion to Supplement Petition for Writ of Mandamus. In that motion, Petitioner argues that the issuance of the state court opinion has satisfied the first prong of Petitioner's requested relief, but not the second prong. As such, Petitioner maintains that Pon. App. No. 4-91 still should be transferred to the "FSM Appellate Court."

A plain reading of Petitioner's submission reveals otherwise. The petition explicitly states that the second ground for relief, transferring the case to the FSM Appellate Division, was an "alternative" to the first request for relief. The original petition also stated that the second ground for relief was conditioned upon "the Pohnpei State Appellate Court fail[ure], or refus[al], or [inability] to issue its decision." Here, the state court has issued its opinion. Therefore, all of petitioner's demands have been satisfied. Accordingly, the Court rejects Petitioner's interpretation of the grounds for relief set forth in its petition and reaffirms that the issuance of the state court opinion entirely met petitioner's demands.

Petitioner's motion also requests this Court's permission to amend the mandamus petition pursuant to FSM Civil Rule 15(d). According to Rule 15(d):

Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.

Thus, the Court has discretion to determine whether to allow a party to serve additional, supplemental pleadings upon the opposing party. In this case, Petitioner seeks to modify its pleadings under Rule 15(d) based on the issuance of the state court opinion. Specifically, Petitioner requests permission to supplement its pleadings in order to seek additional mandamus relief should "the Pohnpei State Appellate Court fail[], or refuse[], or [be] unable to comply with the requirements of FSM App. R. 11(c) and (d) within the time allowed by the Rules."

The Court concludes that, based on the totality of the circumstances in this case, Petitioner cannot be permitted to supplement its pleadings. First, since Respondents have met all of the demands in Petitioner's original request, it would no longer be "just" to allow Petitioner to serve supplemental demands upon Respondent. Second, the subsequent "occurrence" upon which Petitioner conditions its request for permission to file supplemental pleadings under Rule 15(d) is the occurrence of the very act that Petitioner sought in its original petition. In other words, Petitioner sought a particular form of relief, received that relief, and now wishes to seek additional relief because it is no longer satisfied with the relief that it sought and received. The Court concludes that the circumstances of this case are not appropriate to a grant of the Court's discretionary power pursuant to Rule 15(d).

Moreover, even if the Court were inclined to review the merits of Petitioner's Rule 15(d) request, that request still must be denied because mandamus relief is not appropriate in these circumstances. The law of this Court clearly establishes that the writ of mandamus is an "extraordinary remedy" designed to prevent public officials from committing "clear abuse[s] of power." In re Main, 4 FSM Intrm. 255, 258 (Pon. 1984). As such, mandamus relief cannot be used as a precaution against future events that may never occur.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Petitioner's request to supplement its pleadings in this case is denied. It is further ordered that the Petitioner's application for a writ of mandamus is denied and this matter is hereby dismissed.

* * *