Case Title: Stacy v. Superior Court Department

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12577

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2018-10-17T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12577 
 
MARK A. STACY  vs.  SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT. 
 
 
October 17, 2018. 
 
 
Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, Moot case.  
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Mark A. Stacy appeals from a judgment of the county court 
dismissing as moot his complaint for relief in the nature of 
mandamus.  In 1986 and 1989, Stacy pleaded guilty in the 
Superior Court to various offenses.  In 2016, he filed two 
motions pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 
Mass. 1501 (2001), seeking to withdraw those guilty pleas.  In 
April, 2018, Stacy filed his complaint in the county court, 
seeking an order directing the Superior Court to take action on 
his motions.  While the complaint was pending, a judge in the 
Superior Court issued a decision denying both motions.1  A single 
justice of this court accordingly dismissed the complaint as 
moot. 
 
 
Stacy has filed what was intended as a memorandum and 
appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 
1301 (2001).  That rule does not apply, as Stacy "was not 
challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court, but 
rather the inaction of the court."  Santiago v. Young, 446 Mass. 
1006, 1006 (2006).  Nevertheless, it is clear on the record that 
                     
 
1 Stacy asserts that no such decision has been made.  We 
have, however, been provided with a copy of the decision in 
question, and the Superior Court dockets plainly show that the 
motions have been denied.  We express no view as to the merits 
of that decision.  To the extent that Stacy is aggrieved by the 
denial of his motions, he has not shown that he lacks an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary appellate process. 
2 
 
 
Stacy has received the specific relief sought in his complaint, 
namely, a ruling on his motion.  The complaint was properly 
dismissed as moot.  See Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 
1003, 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001).   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Mark A. Stacy, pro se. 
 
Anna Lumelsky, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
Commonwealth.