Home JOSEPH LAURANO VS. JUSTICES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT [Note 1] (and a consolidated case)

429 Mass. 1016

June 22, 1999

The petitioner filed in the county court a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, s. 3, seeking to enjoin an interpleader action then pending in the Superior Court that concerned the validity of an attorney's lien and the distribution of certain settlement proceeds. After the filing of the petition, the Superior Court transferred the underlying action to the Boston Municipal Court. A single justice of this court denied the petition after a hearing, and the petitioner appealed. We affirm.

A request for relief under G. L. c. 211, s. 3, is properly denied where the petitioning party has or had an adequate and effective avenue to seek and obtain the requested relief other than G. L. c. 211, s. 3. See, e.g., Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006 (1996); Adams v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 420 Mass. 807 , 808 (1995). Here, the petitioner had other available remedies. He could have appealed through the normal appellate procedures following a trial in the Superior or Municipal Court. Also, under G. L. c. 231, s. 118, first par., the petitioner could have sought interlocutory review of the challenged Superior Court orders by filing a petition with a single justice of the Appeals Court. He also could have sought interlocutory review of any order of the Municipal Court by requesting the court to report such ruling to the Appellate Division pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 64 (b), as appearing in 423 Mass. 1410 (1996), and Rule 5 of the District/Municipal Rules of Appellate Division Appeal (1999). Having failed to demonstrate that these traditional remedies would not provide full and effective relief, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary relief set forth in G. L. c. 211, s. 3.

The petitioner also appeals the single justice's denial of his motion to stay the trial court proceedings pending his appeal from the denial of his c. 211, s. 3, petition. There is nothing to suggest that the single justice abused his discretion in denying such a motion.

Orders of the single justice affirmed.

The case was submitted on brief.

Joseph Laurano, pro se.


FOOTNOTES

[Note 1] Named as a nominal party.

Home RAY W. ROBINSON VS. COMMONWEALTH

429 Mass. 1016

June 22, 1999

Ray W. Robinson (petitioner) appeals from the denial of his petition, pursuant

Page 1017

to G. L. c. 211, s. 3, for relief by a single justice of this court. The petitioner, while awaiting a new trial, sought review of several pretrial motions he had filed pro se and that he claimed had neither been docketed by the clerk nor acted on by the court. The single justice denied the request for relief; judgment was entered on September 28, 1998; the petitioner filed a notice of appeal on October 2, 1998.

The Commonwealth has filed a motion to dismiss the petitioner's appeal, alleging, among other things, that the court has not acted on some of the petitioner's motions or has reserved action for the trial judge and asserting that review of the trial judge's decisions may be obtained on appeal from the final judgment. The petitioner then filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The conclusory allegations therein regarding the absence of any other remedy are not persuasive. The petitioner's subsequent motion to dismiss his appeal without prejudice does not alter our view. The Commonwealth's motion to dismiss is allowed.

So ordered.

The case was submitted.

Jane Davidson Montori, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Ray W. Robinson, pro se.