Donald Perry (petitioner) filed a petition in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He sought review of an order of a Housing Court judge denying his motion for waiver of an appeal bond, setting the bond, and ordering payment of use and occupancy during the pendency of the petitioner's appeal from an adverse summary process judgment. See G. L. c. 239, §§ 5, 6. A single justice of this court denied the petition. We affirm.

A single justice properly denies relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, "where there are [other] adequate and effective routes . . . by which the petitioning party may seek relief." Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996). In this case, the petitioner sought and received review of the Housing Court judge's order from a single justice of the Appeals Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 239, § 5. To the extent the petitioner wished further to challenge the order, he could have "refuse[d] to pay the bond, suffer[ed] the dismissal of [his] summary process appeal, and then appeal[ed] to the Appeals Court (on the limited bond issue) from the order of dismissal." Matter of an Appeal Bond (No. 1), 428 Mass. 1013, 1013 (1998) (collecting cases). The petitioner also could have –- as he did here –- pay the bond and proceed with his direct appeal from the summary process judgment in the Appeals Court. He is free to raise his claims concerning the bond and the use and occupancy payments in that proceeding. See generally Cambridge Street Realty, LLC v. Stewart, 481 Mass. 121, 126 (2018) (considering merit of both summary process judgment and appeal bond order).

The single justice neither erred nor abused her discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Donald Perry, pro se.

Jason MacKeen for the respondent.

Tyron Cline (petitioner) appeals from a judgment of the county court. The case arises from a complaint for contempt filed in the Probate and Family Court by his former wife, who alleged that he refused to pay child support as required by their judgment of divorce. [Note 1] The petitioner styled his petition as one seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Such relief is inapposite, as there is no indication that the petitioner is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty. G. L. c. 248, § 1. Even if we read his papers generously as seeking relief relating to his child support obligation or to the contempt proceeding, he has shown no basis for relief, nor

Page 1055

has he offered any reason why he could not raise his claims by appealing from a contempt judgment to the Appeals Court in the ordinary process rather than seeking extraordinary relief from the county court. The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying relief.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Tyron Donovan Cline, pro se.