Case Title: Isijola v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13185

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-12-16T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13185 
 
FEMI E. ISIJOLA  vs.  BOARD OF APPEAL ON MOTOR VEHICLE  
LIABILITY POLICIES AND BONDS. 
 
 
December 16, 2021. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Femi E. Isijola, appeals from a judgment of 
a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.  
 
In September 2020, the registry of motor vehicles 
(registry) notified Isijola that it was suspending his driver's 
license on the basis that the New Hampshire Department of 
Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles, had suspended his driver's 
license in New Hampshire.1  Isijola appealed to the Board of 
Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Polices and Bonds (board), 
which upheld the registry's decision.  Isijola then commenced an 
action in the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14, in 
 
 
1 Pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 22 (c), if the Registrar of 
Motor Vehicles  
 
"receives official notice . . . that a resident of the 
commonwealth . . . has had a license or right to operate 
suspended or revoked in another state . . . the registrar 
shall not issue a license to said person, and if a license 
has already been issued the registrar shall immediately 
revoke said license, without a prior hearing.  However, if 
said license or right to operate is subsequently reinstated 
by such other state, . . . the person may apply to the 
registrar for reinstatement of said license in the 
commonwealth."     
 
2 
 
March 2021, seeking judicial review of the board's decision.  
The board filed a motion to stay the Superior Court case on the 
basis that Isijola's appeal of the New Hampshire suspension was 
still pending in that State and that resolution of the appeal 
would affect the issues presented in the Massachusetts 
proceedings.  A judge allowed the motion to stay. The judge also 
declined to act on Isijola's motion for summary judgment, 
pending resolution of the New Hampshire matter.   
 
Isijola thereafter filed a petition for interlocutory 
review with a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to 
G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par.  A single justice denied the 
petition.2  Undeterred, Isijola then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition in the county court, again seeking relief from the 
trial court rulings.  In his petition he argued that he had no 
other avenue for appellate review and he asked the court to 
vacate the stay and to allow his motion for summary judgment.  
The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. 
 
 
The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a showing that 
"review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be 
obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial 
court or by other available means."  S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  
Isijola has not made, and cannot make, such a showing.  He has 
already sought interlocutory review of the trial court rulings 
in question under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., and has been 
denied relief by a single justice of the Appeals Court.  He is 
not entitled as of right to additional review under this court's 
extraordinary power of general superintendence at this stage.  
See Guzzi v. Secretary of Pub. Safety, 450 Mass. 1016, 1016 
(2007) ("Although his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, 
was denied, G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not provide a second 
opportunity as a matter of right for interlocutory relief").  
See also Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 
(1996) ("Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie where 
review under c. 231, § 118, would suffice").   
 
The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  
 
 
2 The petitioner's subsequent notice of appeal from the 
single justice's decision was struck, properly (and by a 
different single justice), on the basis that there is no right 
to appeal from the denial of a petition filed pursuant to G. L. 
c. 231, § 118, first par.  See McMenimen v. Passatempo, 452 
Mass. 178, 189-193 (2008). 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
Femi E. Isijola, pro se. 
Nicole B. Capridli, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
respondent.