Muckle v. Lamothe

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Paul L. Muckle’s petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The court held that Muckle had adequate remedies through the ordinary appellate process for challenging the District Court rulings and had not shown circumstances warranting extraordinary superintendence relief.

Holdings

1. A single justice does not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, when the petitioner has another adequate and effective remedy, including review through an ordinary appeal from a final judgment.
2. The Supreme Judicial Court will not reverse a single justice's decision absent an abuse of discretion or a clear error of law.
3. Extraordinary relief was not warranted because Muckle failed to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of other remedies for the alleged inaction or pending motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the single justice abused her discretion or committed an error of law by denying Muckle's petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
2. Whether Muckle demonstrated that the ordinary appellate process was an inadequate and ineffective remedy for review of the District Court's interlocutory and related rulings.
3. Whether Muckle was entitled to extraordinary relief concerning a pending motion for reconsideration or alleged trial-court inaction.

Disposition

affirmed