Home REGGIE BRAGG vs. LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.

439 Mass. 1012

June 26, 2003

Reggie Bragg appeals from the denial of his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, by a single justice of this court. We affirm.

Bragg's petition -- which consists of a single page containing only broad, unsubstantiated allegations -- is fundamentally flawed in at least two respects. First, Bragg failed to satisfy his burden of creating a record sufficient to substantiate his allegations: there was no record before the single justice. See Lu v. Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep't, 432 Mass. 1005 , 1005-1006 (2000) (petitioner must demonstrate, not merely allege, violation of substantive right). Second, he failed to demonstrate that he could not obtain his requested relief through some other adequate and effective means. Maza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1006 , 1006 (1996), and cases cited (petition properly denied where plaintiff could have appealed to Appeals Court panel from Appeals Court single justice's denial of motion to have appeal docketed late). Indeed, it was not at all clear what relief Bragg was seeking.

Judgment affirmed.

Reggie Bragg, pro se, submitted a brief.

Home AMIN KARIMPOUR vs. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

439 Mass. 1012

July 14, 2003

The plaintiff filed a document in the county court entitled "Complaint on relief from denial of due process and abuse of power by the courts and seek justices [sic] under Article Fifth of the State Constitution." A single justice of this court denied the relief requested in the complaint without a hearing, and the plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

Essentially, the plaintiff's "complaint" is an untimely request for rehearing of an earlier petition he filed pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. A single justice of this court denied relief, and a second single justice denied the additional relief requested in several related motions and other documents the plaintiff filed in the same case. [Note 1] The plaintiff did not appeal from any of those decisions. Instead, long after the time to appeal had expired, he filed the present complaint, in which he repeated the same claims. It is improper for the plaintiff to attempt to resuscitate his claims in this manner. See, e.g., Creighton v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1001 (1996) (second petition requesting that single justice reconsider denial of first petition properly denied where

Page 1013

petitioner had opportunity to appeal to full court from earlier denial and failed to do so). Therefore, we conclude that there was no error in denying the requested relief.

Judgment affirmed.

Amin Karimpour, pro se.


FOOTNOTES

[Note 1] The plaintiff's claims pertained to one or more abuse prevention orders issued against him. He appealed from at least one of the orders to the Appeals Court, but entry in that court was vacated as premature. It does not appear that the plaintiff has sought to reenter his appeal.