Case Title: Kifor v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13310

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2022-10-13T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13310 
 
IMRE KIFOR  vs.  COMMONWEALTH & others.1 
 
 
October 13, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Imre Kifor, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
In his petition, Kifor stated that he was seeking relief 
from "activities" of the respondents that "are continually not 
according to the course of the common law."  His claims appear 
to stem from several different proceedings, both in the trial 
court and the Appeals Court, and he argued, among other things, 
that he has been subject to systemic fraud and "preclusion" of 
appeals.  He also argued that his due process rights have been 
violated.  The single justice denied the petition without a 
hearing. 
 
Kifor has now filed what purports to be a memorandum and 
appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 
1301 (2001), even though, as best we can discern from the 
record, he is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the 
trial court.  Indeed, it is difficult to discern what, 
specifically, he is challenging, although it is clear that he is 
expressing general dissatisfaction with various lower court 
rulings and judgments.  This is not the first time that Kifor 
has sought relief in this court.  See, e.g., Kifor v. 
Commonwealth, 490 Mass. 1003 (2022).  In that case, as here, 
Kifor had adequate alternative remedies available to him, 
 
1 Attorney General and Middlesex Division of the Probate and 
Family Court Department. 
2 
 
notwithstanding his assertions to the contrary.  Indeed, he has 
pursued several of those avenues, including in the Appeals 
Court.  See, e.g., Duchesne v. Kifor, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1111, 
S.C., 490 Mass. 1106 (2022).  That those appeals were not 
successful –- that is, that they did not lead to decisions in 
Kifor's favor –- does not entitle Kifor to additional review.  
General Laws c. 211, § 3, "does not provide a second 
opportunity" for relief.  Guzzi v. Secretary of Pub. Safety, 450 
Mass. 1016, 1016 (2007).  "Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is 
properly denied where there are adequate and effective routes 
other than c. 211, § 3, by which the petitioning party may seek 
relief."  Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 
(1996). 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Imre Kifor, pro se.