Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Karen Russell’s petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking relief from a Superior Court order denying her leave to file another complaint. The court held that Russell failed to show that ordinary appellate remedies were inadequate and failed to create an adequate factual record supporting extraordinary relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Russell was entitled to relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from the Superior Court order denying her leave to file another complaint.
- Whether the denial of leave to file was a final order that could be remedied through the ordinary appellate process.
- Whether Russell established an adequate factual record to support extraordinary relief.
Holdings
- A petitioner seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, must demonstrate that other available remedies, including ordinary appellate review, are absent or inadequate. Russell failed to make that showing.
- Russell was not entitled to extraordinary relief because she failed to create an adequate factual record before the single justice to substantiate her claim.
Key quotations
“We affirm the single justice’s judgment because Russell failed to allege in her petition, let alone demonstrate, that the Superior Court judge’s order denying leave to file could not have been adequately remedied through the normal appellate process or by other available means.” (1016)
“Because the denial of leave to file a new complaint was a final order — effectively foreclosing Russell from proceeding further in the trial court and leaving the court with nothing else to do in the case at this time — Russell could have appealed from the order (and may appeal from future orders denying leave) to the Appeals Court.” (1016)
Factual background
Russell had previously brought a civil action against the defendants, resulting in a Superior Court judgment for the defendants and an order requiring her to obtain leave before filing future complaints against them. She later sought leave to file another complaint, but a Superior Court judge denied the motion. Russell then petitioned under G. L. c. 211, § 3, asserting that the denial warranted extraordinary relief.
Procedural history
In March 1999, the Superior Court entered judgment for the defendants in Russell's civil action and ordered that no future complaint by Russell against them be accepted for filing without leave of court. In August 2000, a second Superior Court judge denied Russell leave to file another complaint. A single justice of the county court denied Russell's G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition without a hearing, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.