Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civil Bus. in Suffolk Cnty.
Decision Date | 29 September 2015 |
Docket Number | SJC–11811. |
Citation | 37 N.E.3d 1095,472 Mass. 1017 |
Parties | Bodhisattva SKANDHA v. CLERK OF the SUPERIOR COURT FOR CIVIL BUSINESS IN SUFFOLK COUNTY. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Bodhisattva Skandha, pro se.
RESCRIPT.
The petitioner, Bodhisattva Skandha, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petitions pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3, and for relief in the nature of mandamus pursuant to G.L. c. 249, § 5. We affirm.
Background. The petitions stem from Skandha's effort to appeal from the dismissal of a complaint in the Superior Court that he and two other plaintiffs filed, in August, 2010, against the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) and several associated attorneys. The plaintiffs claimed that CPCS and the attorneys had violated the plaintiffs' due process rights by, among other things, failing to screen their new trial motions to determine whether they had any claims that would entitle them to relief from their respective convictions. A judge in the Superior Court dismissed the complaint, in May, 2013, and it appears that Skandha timely filed a notice of appeal.1 The appeal was dismissed, however, in January, 2014, apparently on the basis that Skandha had failed to
take the necessary steps to perfect it.2
Skandha subsequently timely filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of his appeal, as he was entitled to do (in which he again indicated that there were no transcripts in the matter, see note 2, supra ). He also filed, in March, 2014, a “motion for the court to order the clerk to provide the pleadings for the plaintiffs' appeal,” and, in June, 2014, a motion in the Superior Court asking the court “to order the clerk to assemble the record.” Both of these motions were stamped “rejected” on June 26, 2014, and never docketed. After his efforts to appeal stalled in the Superior Court, Skandha filed his petitions in the county court for relief in the nature of mandamus and pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3, asking the single justice to direct the clerk of the Superior Court to assemble the record for purposes of his appeal. The petitions were denied without a hearing.
Discussion. Skandha has now filed what appears to have been intended as a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Technically speaking, that rule does not apply here because the trial court rulings at issue—i.e., the refusal to accept and process his motions to compel assembly of the record—were not interlocutory rulings. Regardless, as explained below, this is not a situation where extraordinary relief from this court is required.
When his motions to compel assembly of the record were rejected, Skandha had available a variety of other practical and legal steps he could have pursued before seeking the intervention of this court. A good roadmap can be found in the Appeals Court's opinion in Zatsky v. Zatsky, 36 Mass.App.Ct. 7, 12–13, 627 N.E.2d 474 (1994), a case that we have cited with approval many times. In Zatsky, the Appeals Court said:
Of these steps, seeking the intervention of this court should be the last resort. We routinely have upheld the denial of extraordinary relief by single justices of this court in similar circumstances when the litigant has not first pursued available alternatives. Examples include Santiago v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1045, 817 N.E.2d 756 (2004) ; Gaumond v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1015, 812 N.E.2d 261 (2004) ; and Keane v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1002, 785 N.E.2d 675 (2003). See Matthews v. D'Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021, 1022, 681 N.E.2d 815 (1997). There is no indication in this record that Skandha took...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Spinucci
... ... SJC10018. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex. Argued April 10, ... , pro se, his posttrial motion in the Superior Court. 6 Thereafter, the defendant's appeal to ... ...
-
Spinucci v. Vidal
... ... OSVALDO VIDAL, Respondent. Civil Action No. 16-cv-12513-ADB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS May 6, 2020 ... ; (2) that the state courts' (Middlesex Superior Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ... ...
-
D.R. Peck Excavating, Inc. v. Machado
...clerk's office failed to accept or process its first notice of appeal. See, e.g., Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civ. Business in Suffolk County, 472 Mass. 1017, 1018-1019, 37 N.E.3d 1095 (2015), and cases cited. See also Associated Chiropractic Servs., Inc. vs. Travelers Ins. C......
-
Wells Fargo Bank v. Sutton
... ... v. JASON A. SUTTON No. 22-P-516Appeals Court of Massachusetts, HampdenAugust 23, 2023 ... Housing Court clerk's office refused to docket the ... See ... Skandha v. Clerk of the ... Superior Court for l Business in Suffolk County, 472 ... Mass. 1017, 1019 (2015), ... ...