Summary
This Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court per curiam opinion affirms a single justice's denial of a petition for extraordinary relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. The petitioner, proceeding pro se, challenged multiple district court orders regarding the dismissal of his complaint against an insurance company and a denied request for indigency fee waiver. The court held that the single justice did not abuse his discretion in finding no exceptional circumstances warranted extraordinary intervention, limiting review to whether the lower ruling fell within reasonable alternatives. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the single justice abused discretion in denying relief under G.L. c. 211, §3.
Holdings
- The single justice did not abuse discretion; the judgment is affirmed.
Key quotations
“the appeal to the full court 'is strictly limited to a review of that ruling,' . . . and the full court asks only whether the single justice abused his or her discretion in making that decision” (at 1012-1013)
“An abuse of discretion occurs where "the judge made 'a clear error of judgment in weighing' the factors relevant to the decision, such that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives."” (at 69)
Factual background
Wilson sued Commerce Insurance Company in District Court. The complaint was struck and dismissed. He appealed the dismissal and later appealed a denial of a fee‑waiver request. The single justice ordered that future filings be reviewed by a clerk‑magistrate and denied Wilson's petition for extraordinary relief.
Procedural history
Wilson filed a complaint in District Court which was dismissed. He appealed and also appealed a denial of fee waiver. The single justice denied his petition for extraordinary relief. The full court reviewed the single justice's discretionary denial.