Case Title: Myrick v. Superior Court Department

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12190

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12190 
 
KYL V. MYRICK  vs.  SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT.1 
 
 
April 18, 2018. 
 
 
Mandamus.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus.  
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Kyl V. Myrick appeals from a judgment of a single justice 
of this court denying his petition for relief in the nature of 
mandamus.  Myrick's petition sought the reversal of a Superior 
Court judgment dismissing a civil complaint that he had filed in 
that court.  That complaint concerned the denial of his 
applications for criminal complaints in the Boston Municipal 
Court Department.  In his petition to the single justice, Myrick 
also challenged the Superior Court judge's declining to recuse 
himself from the matter.  The single justice correctly denied 
both the petition and Myrick's subsequent request for 
reconsideration. 
 
 
"It would be hard to find any principle more fully 
established in our practice than the principle that neither 
mandamus nor certiorari is to be used as a substitute for 
ordinary appellate procedure or used at any time when there is 
another adequate remedy."  Rines v. Justices of the Superior 
Court, 330 Mass. 368, 371 (1953).  See, e.g., Ardon v. Committee 
for Pub. Counsel Servs., 464 Mass. 1001 (2012).  There was, as 
the single justice recognized, a plainly adequate alternative 
remedy for Myrick to pursue after his complaint in the Superior 
Court was dismissed, namely, an appeal to the Appeals Court from 
the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the complaint.  
                                                          
 
 
1 The real party in interest, the defendant named in the 
complaint filed in the Superior Court Department, was not made a 
party to these proceedings. 
 
2 
 
 
See Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a), as amended, 464 Mass. 1601 (2013).  As 
for Myrick's claim that the Superior Court judge should have 
recused himself, that claim also could have been raised on 
appeal to the Appeals Court.  See Bloise v. Bloise, 437 Mass. 
1010, 1010 (2002), citing Doten v. Plymouth Div. of the Probate 
& Family Court Dep't, 395 Mass. 1001, 1001 (1985).  See also 
Ewing v. Commonwealth, 451 Mass. 1005, 1006 (2008). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Kyl V. Myrick, pro se. 
 
Eric A. Haskell, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
defendant.