Case Title: Skandha v. Clerk of Superior Court for Civil Bus. in Suffolk County

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-11811

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2015-09-29T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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 
 
SJC-11811 
 
BODHISATTVA SKANDHA  vs.  CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR 
CIVIL BUSINESS IN SUFFOLK COUNTY. 
 
 
 
September 29, 2015. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Mandamus.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, 
Assembly of record.  Clerk of Court. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Bodhisattva Skandha, appeals from a 
judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petitions 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and for relief in the nature of 
mandamus pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 5.  We affirm. 
 
 
Background.  The petitions stem from Skandha's effort to 
appeal from the dismissal of a complaint in the Superior Court 
that he and two other plaintiffs filed, in August, 2010, against 
the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) and several 
associated attorneys.  The plaintiffs claimed that CPCS and the 
attorneys had violated the plaintiffs' due process rights by, 
among other things, failing to screen their new trial motions to 
determine whether they had any claims that would entitle them to 
relief from their respective convictions.  A judge in the 
Superior Court dismissed the complaint, in May, 2013, and it 
appears that Skandha timely filed a notice of appeal.1  The 
appeal was dismissed, however, in January, 2014, apparently on 
                                                 
 
1 Although it is not entirely clear from the trial court 
docket, we presume, for purposes of the matter currently before 
us, that final judgment has entered dismissing Skandha's 
complaint as to each of the defendants. 
2 
the basis that Skandha had failed to take the necessary steps to 
perfect it.2  
 
 
Skandha subsequently timely filed a notice of appeal from 
the dismissal of his appeal, as he was entitled to do (in which 
he again indicated that there were no transcripts in the matter, 
see note 2, supra).  He also filed, in March, 2014, a "motion 
for the court to order the clerk to provide the pleadings for 
the plaintiffs' appeal," and, in June, 2014, a motion in the 
Superior Court asking the court "to order the clerk to assemble 
the record."  Both of these motions were stamped "rejected" on 
June 26, 2014, and never docketed.  After his efforts to appeal 
stalled in the Superior Court, Skandha filed his petitions in 
the county court for relief in the nature of mandamus and 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, asking the single justice to 
direct the clerk of the Superior Court to assemble the record 
for purposes of his appeal.  The petitions were denied without a 
hearing. 
 
 
Discussion.  Skandha has now filed what appears to have 
been intended as a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. 
Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  Technically 
speaking, that rule does not apply here because the trial court 
rulings at issue -- i.e., the refusal to accept and process his 
motions to compel assembly of the record -- were not 
interlocutory rulings.  Regardless, as explained below, this is 
not a situation where extraordinary relief from this court is 
required. 
 
 
When his motions to compel assembly of the record were 
rejected, Skandha had available a variety of other practical and 
legal steps he could have pursued before seeking the 
intervention of this court.  A good roadmap can be found in the 
Appeals Court's opinion in Zatsky v. Zatsky, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 
7, 12-13 (1994), a case that we have cited with approval many 
times.  In Zatsky, the Appeals Court said: 
 
 
"If an appellant experiences delay in assembly of the 
record, a pragmatic first step is to report the problem to 
the clerk of the Appeals Court, the court with which the 
                                                 
 
2 As best we can discern from the record before us, the 
Superior Court dismissed the appeal because, as one of the 
defendants argued, Skandha failed to "file a designation of 
portions of the trial transcript to be ordered."  As Skandha 
notes, however, his notice of appeal specifically stated that 
"there are no transcripts in this case." 
3 
appeal would lodge in the first instance.  Often a clerk to 
clerk . . . communication may produce the desired 
expedition.  The next steps . . . would be a request for 
intervention by the chief judge of the trial court 
concerned, invocation of the superintendency powers of the 
Supreme Judicial Court, and mandamus.  A party may also 
bring a motion before a single justice of the Appeals Court 
either to compel a clerk . . . to assemble a record 
promptly or to waive assembly of the record as a 
prerequisite to entering the appeal." 
 
 
Of these steps, seeking the intervention of this court 
should be the last resort.  We routinely have upheld the denial 
of extraordinary relief by single justices of this court in 
similar circumstances when the litigant has not first pursued 
available alternatives.  Examples include Santiago v. 
Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1045 (2004); Gaumond v. Commonwealth, 
442 Mass. 1015 (2004); and Keane v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1002 
(2003).  See Matthews v. D'Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021, 1022 (1997).  
There is no indication in this record that Skandha took any of 
these other steps before seeking extraordinary relief from this 
court.  The single justice was therefore well within his 
discretion in denying the petitions. 
 
 
That said, we can see no reason why the clerk in this case 
could have refused to accept Skandha's motions.  Skandha had the 
right to appeal from the dismissal of his original appeal and 
the right to seek assembly of a record for that purpose.  See 
Elles v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Quincy, 450 Mass. 671, 673 
(2008).  It was not for the clerk to refuse to accept his 
motions directed toward that end; the clerk's role in these 
circumstances was to accept his motions and to submit them to a 
judge for action.  "Clerks . . . are ministerial officers of the 
court when it comes to receiving and filing papers."  Gorod v. 
Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001 (1998).  "If a dispute arises 
as to whether the record must be assembled in a given case, the 
litigant who seeks to appeal may move for an order compelling 
the assembly, and the matter must then be resolved by a 
judge. . . .  That is a legal determination for a judge to make, 
subject to appellate review."  Id. at 1001-1002.  We trust that 
if the motion is refiled now, it will be docketed and promptly 
acted on.   
 
 
We also are mindful that Skandha has filed numerous cases 
in the Superior Court for Suffolk County and that, as a result, 
that court issued an order, in October, 2011, that any new case 
received by that clerk's office shall be reviewed by the 
4 
regional administrative justice prior to acceptance for filing.  
There is no indication on the trial court docket or otherwise in 
the record before us that this order applies to the rejected 
motions in this case.  If this was in fact the clerk's basis for 
rejecting Skandha's motions, which we think would be 
questionable, it would behoove the clerk, and aid the appellate 
courts, if this were so indicated.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Bodhisattva Skandha, pro se.