Case Title: Bishay v. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13076

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-04-14T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13076 
 
BAHIG BISHAY  vs.  SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT. 
 
 
 
April 14, 2021. 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Bahig Bishay, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.  We affirm.   
 
In 2016, Bishay and National Investigations, Inc. 
(National), filed a petition in the county court seeking relief 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and relief in the nature of 
mandamus pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 5.  They asked the court to 
order the clerk of the Superior Court in Norfolk County to enter 
a final judgment in certain proceedings in that court.  See 
Bishay v. Clerk of the Superior Court in Norfolk County, 476 
Mass. 1017, 1017-1018 (2017).  The proceedings involved claims 
by Bishay against several parties, including National.  See id. 
at 1017.  Although Bishay and National purported to enter into a 
settlement of the claims between them and moved for entry of 
final judgment on that basis, the other parties involved opposed 
the motion and a judge denied it.  See id. at 1017-1018.  That 
denial prompted the petition in the county court.  A single 
justice denied it, and the petitioners appealed.  See id. at 
1018.  As set forth in our decision affirming the single 
justice's judgment, the petitioners had failed to demonstrate, 
as they were required to do pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), that "review of the trial court 
decision [could not] adequately be obtained on appeal from any 
final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available 
means."  See Bishay, supra, quoting S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2).  In 
other words, the petition failed because there existed an 
adequate alternative remedy.    
 
2 
 
It appears that Bishay next filed a belated petition in the 
Appeals Court under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., seeking 
essentially the same relief, but because that petition was 
untimely, a single justice of the Appeals Court denied it.1  
Bishay also eventually filed a notice of appeal from the final 
judgment in the trial court.  The Appeals Court affirmed the 
judgment, and we denied Bishay's subsequent application for 
further appellate review.  See Bishay v. National 
Investigations, Inc., 98 Mass. App. Ct. 1107, S.C., 486 Mass. 
1109 (2020).  
 
Undeterred, and notwithstanding the fact that we have 
previously cautioned him against filing groundless petitions in 
the county court, see infra, Bishay then filed his current 
petition, again pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and G. L. c. 249, 
§ 5, asking the court to direct the trial court to either "enter 
the Agreement for Judgment" or schedule a trial.  The single 
justice denied the petition without a hearing, and Bishay 
appeals.  Bishay is not entitled to relief.  He argues that he 
has exhausted all of his other remedies and that, as a court of 
"last resort," we must act.  This argument misses the point.  
That he was unsuccessful –- that his petition pursuant to G. L. 
c. 231, § 118, first par., was denied; that the trial court's 
judgment was later affirmed on appeal; and that his application 
for further appellate review was denied –- does not entitle him 
to relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Our general 
superintendence power is intended for situations where a 
petitioner has no adequate alternative remedy, not where an 
adequate alternative exists that a petitioner fails to pursue or 
pursues unsuccessfully.  See, e.g., Votta v. Commonwealth, 444 
Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005) ("Our general superintendence power 
cannot be invoked simply to get another bite of the apple").  
The single justice thus did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief. 
 
As we have noted, this is not the first time that Bishay 
has filed a petition that was destined to fail because of an 
adequate alternative remedy.  See Bishay v. Superior Court 
Dep't, 480 Mass. 1033 (2018); Bishay v. Merrill Lynch Credit 
Corp., 480 Mass. 1028 (2018); Costello v. Merrill Lynch Credit 
 
1 Although National Investigations, Inc., initially appeared 
with Bahig Bishay as a petitioner in the county court and in 
this court, all of the subsequent proceedings discussed herein 
were brought by Bishay only. 
 
 
3 
Corp., 480 Mass. 1027 (2018); Bishay v. Land Court Dep't of the 
Trial Court, 477 Mass. 1032 (2017); Bishay v. District Court 
Dep't of the Trial Court, 477 Mass. 1030 (2017); Bishay v. Clerk 
of the Superior Court in Norfolk County, 476 Mass. 1017 (2017).  
In each of those cases, the single justice denied Bishay's 
petition, he appealed to the full court, and we explained that 
he was not entitled to extraordinary relief from this court in 
the face of an adequate alternative.  And indeed, given his 
repeated petitions in such circumstances, we cautioned in one of 
our earlier decisions that we might, at some point in the 
future, issue an order requiring him to seek approval prior to 
filing any further petitions if he continued to misuse the 
process.  Bishay v. Land Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 477 
Mass. at 1032 n.1.2  Despite that warning, Bishay has continued 
to file petitions and pursue appeals -- including the petition 
and appeal in this case -- that were doomed to fail because of 
adequate alternative remedies.  See Bishay v. Superior Court 
Dep't, supra; Bishay v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., supra; 
Costello, supra. 
 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the single justice denying 
Bishay's petition is affirmed, and as we have ordered with 
respect to other litigants who have repeatedly filed groundless 
petitions after being cautioned against doing so, "[t]he clerk 
of this court for Suffolk County and the clerk for the 
Commonwealth are instructed not to accept any new petition or 
appeal from this petitioner that seeks extraordinary relief, by 
way of G. L. c. 211, § 3, or otherwise, unless it is accompanied 
by a motion for leave to file, and shall not docket the petition 
or appeal unless and until the full court grants the motion on 
making a preliminary determination that the petitioner has no 
other adequate remedy and that he has furnished the court with a 
record that substantiates his claims."  Watson v. Justice of the 
Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep't, 458 Mass. 1025, 1027 
(2011).  "In seeking leave to file a new petition or appeal, 
[Bishay] will also be required to demonstrate to the 
satisfaction of the court that the proper parties have been 
named (see S.J.C. Rule 2:22, 422 Mass. 1302 [1996]); that proper 
service has been or will be made; [and,] in the case of an 
appeal, that the appeal is timely; and he shall indicate whether 
any appeal is subject to the provisions of S.J.C. Rule 2:21 
. . . ."  Id. at 1027 n.4. 
 
 
2 We note that the Superior Court has already issued such an 
order, which was the subject of one of Bishay's earlier G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, petitions in this court.  Bishay v. Land Court 
Dep't of the Trial Court, 477 Mass. 1032 (2017). 
 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Bahig Bishay, pro se.