Home THOMAS F. DOWD vs. COMMONWEALTH

440 Mass. 1007

September 17, 2003

The petitioner, Thomas F. Dowd, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying the relief he sought in a document that the single justice treated as a petition under G. L. c. 211, s. 3. [Note 1] We affirm.

Dowd's petition disputes the legality of certain conditions of probation imposed on him in an underlying criminal matter. [Note 2] Because the propriety of those conditions can be adequately challenged in the ordinary appellate process, and Dowd has neither alleged nor demonstrated otherwise, the single justice did not err in denying extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, s. 3. [Note 3] See, e.g., Constantine v. Commonwealth, 435 Mass. 1011 , 1012 (2002). Judgment affirmed.

Thomas F Dowd, pro se.


FOOTNOTES

[Note 1] The document purported to invoke various sections of S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981), to secure relief. That rule permits this court to answer questions of law certified to it by certain other courts, and a plain reading of the rule indicates that it was not properly relied on by the petitioner. See S.J.C. Rule 1:03, s. 2. The single justice did not err in treating the petition as seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, s. 3.

[Note 2] We note that Dowd's appellate brief makes arguments, and seeks relief, not made to and requested from the single justice. "We do not consider any . . . issues, arguments, [or] claims raised [by the petitioner] on appeal that were not raised before the single justice." Bloise v. Bloise, 437 Mass. 1010 , 1010 (2002).

[Note 3] Dowd also sought an order permitting him to vote in a certain election on November 5, 2002. Because that request has become moot, we do not address it. Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003 , 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001).

Home THOMAS F. DOWD vs. TOWN OF DEDHAM & another. [Note 1]

440 Mass. 1007

September 17, 2003

The petitioner, Thomas F. Dowd, filed a document entitled "Pro Se Appellant's Verified Emergency Appeal," which a single justice of this court treated as a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition and denied without a hearing. On appeal, the

Page 1008

petitioner asks this court to determine that a town official violated G. L. c. 56, § 12, and to order the Attorney General to "convene" a grand jury to seek an indictment against the official for violation of that statute. Not only was this relief not requested in the petition filed with the single justice, see Bloise v. Bloise, 437 Mass. 1010 , 1010 (2002), but the petitioner alleges no abuse of discretion or other error by the single justice in the judgment rendered on the specific claims that were before her. Indeed, the petitioner's brief on appeal fails to include any meaningful argument in support of either the claims that were before the single justice or the claims that he now presses before the full court. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). See also Moore v. Commonwealth, 426 Mass. 1012 (1998).

Judgment affirmed.

Thomas F. Dowd, pro se.

Joyce Frank, for the defendants, submitted a brief.


FOOTNOTES

[Note 1] The town clerk of Dedham.