Case Title: In re Burnham

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-OE-142

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2020-04-29T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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 
 
OE-0142 
 
IN THE MATTER OF ARTHUR BURNHAM. 
 
 
April 29, 2020. 
 
 
Practice, Civil, Action in the nature of mandamus.  Supreme 
Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
Arthur Burnham filed a complaint in this court seeking 
relief in the nature of mandamus.  For the reasons set forth 
infra, the complaint is dismissed. 
 
The complaint sets forth four primary requests for relief, 
all relating to postconviction motions and requests for relief 
that Burnham has made in a criminal proceeding in the Superior 
Court to withdraw his guilty plea.  Specifically, he requests 
that this court (1) clarify whether his motion to withdraw his 
guilty plea pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing 
in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), is a collateral proceeding or a direct 
appellate proceeding (implicating the right to counsel);1 
(2) clarify whether appointment of counsel is otherwise required 
in such proceeding as a reasonable accommodation under the 
Federal Americans with Disabilities Act; (3) clarify whether he 
is entitled to other reasonable accommodations requested in the 
Superior Court; and (4) provide a "speedy remedy" for various 
other alleged instances of inaction or misconduct by the 
Superior Court in failing to provide relief requested in that 
court. 
                                                          
 
 
1 At the time the complaint was filed in the county court, 
Burnham's motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the underlying 
criminal proceeding remained pending.  The Superior Court docket 
reflects that the motion was denied on March 4, 2020, and that 
Burnham filed a notice of appeal from that denial on March 18, 
2020. 
2 
 
 
 
 
"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."  Chawla v. Appeals Court, 482 Mass. 
1001, 1002, cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 521 (2019), quoting Myrick 
v. Superior Court Dep't, 479 Mass. 1012, 1012 (2018).  Here, the 
relief requested by Burnham may be (and in some cases, already 
has been) requested in the first instance in the Superior Court.  
If relief is denied in the Superior Court, review is available 
in the Appeals Court on appeal from a final judgment or a final 
appealable order, as appropriate.  See Mass. R. A. P. 4 (b), as 
appearing in 481 Mass. 1606 (2019).  Burnham fails to make a 
showing that these alternative avenues of relief are inadequate. 
 
Moreover, "[a] complaint in the nature of mandamus is 
limited to requiring a public official to perform a 'clear cut 
duty,' as opposed to requiring the exercise of discretion in a 
particular way."  Chawla, 482 Mass. at 1002, quoting Ardon v. 
Committee for Pub. Counsel Servs., 464 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2012), 
cert. denied, 571 U.S. 872 (2013).  "[M]andamus will not issue 
to direct a judicial officer to make a particular decision or to 
review, or reverse, a decision made by a judicial officer on an 
issue properly before him or her."  Chawla supra, quoting 
Myrick, 481 Mass. at 1030.  Thus, mandamus relief does not lie 
with respect to Burnham's various challenges to discretionary 
decisions of the Superior Court. 
 
For these reasons, a judgment shall enter dismissing 
Burnham's complaint for relief in the nature of mandamus. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
 
Arthur Burnham, pro se.