Jose Duarte (petitioner) appeals pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from the denial of a petition pursuant to G.L. c. 211, s. 3, for relief by a single justice of this court. A Superior Court judge had denied the petitioner's motion to suppress the identification of him by a certain witness.

The denial of the motion to suppress is an interlocutory ruling for purposes of rule 2:21 (1), so we consider whether the petitioner has met the requirement of subsection 2 of the rule that he "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means." The petitioner contends that there is no method by which he may elicit and make a record of what was said to the witness to persuade him to change his identification other than having him testify at the suppression hearing (which the judge did not allow); and that it is contrary to the interests of justice to allow the case to proceed to trial and (perhaps) to compel the petitioner to have to seek relief after conviction.

We have reviewed the petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, s. 3, and the memorandum filed under rule 2:21. The petitioner does not discuss the alternative course presented by Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996). We conclude that the requirement of rule 2:21 (2) has not been met.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Bernard Grossberg for the plaintiff.

Emmett S. Muldoon (petitioner) appeals pursuant to SJC. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995), from the denial by a single justice of this court of relief requested under G. L. c. 211, s. 3. A Superior Court judge had ordered that an action brought by the petitioner be transferred to the District Court Department in accordance with G.L. c. 231, s. 102C, and had denied a motion to revoke that order, as well as a motion for reconsideration. Before seeking relief from a single justice of this court, the petitioner unsuccessfully requested relief from a single justice of the Appeals Court, and attempted to obtain further appellate review from this court [Note 2].

We treat the transfer order and related rulings by the Superior Court judge as interlocutory for purposes of rule 2:21 (1), and conclude that the petitioner has not met the requirement of rule 2:21 (2) that he "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means."

Page 1006

Judgment affirmed.

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

Emmett S. Muldoon, pro se.