Home RANDY POPE vs. COMMONWEALTH.

424 Mass. 1002

January 6, 1997

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Randy Pope, pro se.

Kevin M. Burke, District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Randy Pope (defendant) purports to appeal under S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), to the full court from a single justice's denial of relief sought under G. L. c. 211, s. 3 (1994 ed.), and G. L. c. 261, s. 27D (1994 ed.). The defendant had sought review of the denial of his request under G. L. c. 261, s.s. 27A-27G (1994 ed.), for funds to hire an investigator.

The decision on which the defendant sought review was made in the Superior Court and appeal therefrom was to a single justice of the Appeals Court. G. L. c. 261, s. 27D. The defendant has not demonstrated "the absence of an alternative, effective remedy." See Soda v. T.P. Sampson Co., 373 Mass. 630 , 631 (1977), and cases cited. The single justice did not commit an error of law or abuse his discretion.

Judgment affirmed.

Home LLOYD MATTHEWS vs. SUPERINTENDENT, MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, CEDAR JUNCTION & others. [Note 1] (Rescript Opinion)

424 Mass. 1002

January 6, 1997

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Lloyd Matthews, pro se.

Ann M. McCarthy for the Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Cedar Junction, & others.

The plaintiff, Lloyd Matthews, appeals from the denial of relief by a single justice of this court under G. L. c. 211, s. 3 (1994 ed.). He had asked the single justice "to lift" a stay of certain trial court proceedings or "to allow him to appeal claims already decided against him."

The trial judge had allowed the defendants' motion to stay proceedings concerning "whether the plaintiff's confinement in the Departmental Disciplinary Unit . . . for more than fifteen days, but less than thirty days, violates G. L. c. 127, s. . 40." The judge did so because the issue was being fully addressed in a separate proceeding.

Hence, we have before us an appeal from the single justice's denial of relief from an interlocutory ruling in the trial court, an appeal which is subject to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995).

The plaintiff has not explained in his memorandum, as required by the rule, why review of the judge's decision may not be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means. Moreover, he has not established that the single justice committed an abuse of discretion or a clear error of law in denying the request for a

Page 1003

stay when the judge issued it to avoid "duplicative and unnecessary" proceedings.

Order affirmed.


FOOTNOTES

[Note 1] Other Department of Correction officials.