Case Title: Carriere v. Department of Correction

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13291

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2022-11-10T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13291 
 
EDMOND CARRIERE  vs.  DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. 
 
 
November 10, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, Moot case. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Edmond Carriere, appeals from a judgment of 
a single justice of this court denying his petition for 
extraordinary relief.1  We dismiss the appeal as moot. 
 
 
Carriere is currently incarcerated at the Massachusetts 
Correctional Institution, Norfolk, serving a life sentence after 
being convicted of murder in the first degree.  In March 2022, 
he filed a petition for medical parole.  While that petition was 
still pending, he filed his petition for extraordinary relief in 
the county court in May 2022.  In the latter petition, he asked 
the court to order the respondent, the Department of Correction 
(department), to create a medical parole plan, including having 
Carriere evaluated for placement in a specific institution.  He 
also asked the court to report a question to the full court 
related to the department's responsibilities in connection with 
medical parole petitions.  A single justice denied the petition 
without a hearing on the basis that Carriere has an adequate 
alternative remedy –- that is, that if the Commissioner of 
Correction (commissioner) denied medical parole, Carriere could 
 
1 The petitioner filed a "petition for extraordinary relief 
and for reported question pursuant to [G. L. c. 211, § 3,] 
requesting writ of mandamus."  General Laws c. 211, § 3, is not 
applicable in the circumstances, and we treat the petition as 
one seeking relief in the nature of mandamus pursuant to G. L. 
c. 249, § 5.  See Troila v. Department of Correction, 490 Mass. 
1013, 1014 n.1 (2022).  
2 
 
seek review of the decision pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4.  The 
commissioner has now denied the petition, and on that basis, we 
dismiss Carriere's appeal as moot.2   
 
 
We recently addressed, in essentially the same 
circumstances involving medical parole, the issues of both 
mootness and the propriety of mandamus relief in Troila v. 
Department of Correction, 490 Mass. 1013 (2022).  There, as 
here, the petitioner had filed a petition for medical parole 
and, while the petition was pending, sought extraordinary relief 
in the county court.  See id. at 1013-1014.  Also in that case, 
like the circumstances here, the commissioner denied Troila's 
petition for medical parole and a single justice denied his 
petition for extraordinary relief.  See id. at 1014.  As we 
stated in Troila, where the "petition for medical parole has 
been denied, the question of preparing a medical parole plan for 
[the petitioner] is moot, as is any legal question concerning 
the department's obligations with regard to medical parole 
planning."  Id. 
 
 
Furthermore, as in Troila, 490 Mass. at 1014, the 
petitioner here would fare no better even were we to consider 
the merits.  A single justice's decision denying relief in the 
nature of mandamus "will rarely be overturned."  Id., and cases 
cited.  Relief in the nature of mandamus is not to be "used as a 
substitute for ordinary appellate procedure or used at any time 
when there is another adequate remedy."  Id., and cases cited.  
There is no indication in the record before us whether Carriere 
is challenging the denial of medical parole, as he is entitled 
to do pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, but even if the appeal were 
not moot, that is where his remedy would lie. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Ruth Greenberg for the petitioner. 
 
Mary Eiro-Bartevyan for the respondent. 
 
2 It appears from the record that the commissioner denied 
the petition for medical parole just prior to the date of the 
single justice's decision (i.e., the single justice was likely 
unaware of the commissioner's decision).