Case Title: Murray v. Massachusetts Parole Board

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12241

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-27T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12241 
 
JAMES MURRAY  vs.  MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD & another.1 
 
 
December 27, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Parole. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, James Murray, also known as James Hines, 
appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court 
denying, without a hearing, his petition for equitable relief.  
We affirm. 
 
 
The petitioner was convicted in 1982 of armed robbery and 
escape.  His consecutive committed sentences "were to be served 
from and after sentences he was, and still is, serving in 
Federal prison in connection with offenses committed in the 
District of Columbia.  In 2003, he was granted parole from 
Federal prison, but declined to be released because he did not 
want to return to Massachusetts to serve his 'from and after' 
sentences." 2  Murray v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 451 Mass. 
                     
 
1 Advisory Board of Pardons. 
 
 
2 The petitioner's multiple prior attempts to challenge 
aspects of his Massachusetts sentences have been unsuccessful.  
See Murray v. Commonwealth, 455 Mass. 1016, 1017 (2009) 
(dismissing as moot petition for equitable relief concerning 
sentence appeals); Murray v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 451 Mass. 
1002, 1003 (2008) (Parole Board without authority to make parole 
decisions where petitioner not serving Massachusetts sentences); 
Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006) (seeking 
relief in nature of mandamus concerning sentence appeals); 
Hines, petitioner, 432 Mass. 1004, 1005 (2000) (G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, petition seeking certification of question concerning 
2 
 
 
 
 
1002, 1003 (2008) (seeking order directing Massachusetts Parole 
Board to aggregate Massachusetts and District of Columbia 
sentences).  See Murray vs. Bledsoe, U.S. Dist. Ct., Nos. 10-
11019, 11-10905 (D. Mass. Sept. 11, 2012), aff'd, U.S. Ct. App., 
No. 12-2245 (1st Cir. June 03, 2014) ("[s]ince 2003, the United 
States Parole Commission has ordered the petitioner paroled to 
the custody of Massachusetts authorities on at least three 
occasions.  Each time the petitioner has refused to sign the 
parole certificate, nullifying the parole").   
 
 
Although the petitioner has not yet begun serving his 
Massachusetts sentences, the petition filed in the county court 
essentially sought an order requiring that he be considered for 
parole, citing G. L. c. 127, § 134 (c),3 and general principles 
of equity.  The single justice properly denied the petition.  
"To the extent that the petitioner seeks credit toward 
satisfaction of his Massachusetts sentences for the time he has 
remained incarcerated in Federal prison since he was granted but 
refused release on parole, such relief is not available because 
he is not currently serving his Massachusetts sentences; the 
[Massachusetts Parole] [B]oard is authorized to make parole 
decisions affecting only 'prisoners in [S]tate and county 
correctional institutions,'" Murray, 451 Mass. at 1003, quoting 
G. L. c. 127, § 128, including "inmate[s] serving a 
                     
constitutionality of consecutive sentences or an advisory 
opinion); Hines v. Commonwealth, 425 Mass. 1013, 1013 (1997) 
(G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition alleging errors in connection with 
sentence appeals); Hines v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1004, cert. 
denied, 519 U.S. 984 (1996) (seeking relief, pursuant G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, from imposition of consecutive sentences on and 
after sentence being served in District of Columbia).  See also 
Hines v. Superior Court, 423 Mass. 1005, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 
984 (1996) (seeking relief from convictions, pursuant to G. L. 
c. 211, § 3). 
 
 
3 General Laws c. 127, § 134 (c), provides in part that "in 
the case of an inmate serving a Massachusetts sentence in 
another [S]tate, the chairman may request the paroling authority 
of that [S]tate or at the written request of the inmate the 
[F]ederal paroling authority with jurisdiction over the 
institution in which said inmate is housed to conduct a hearing 
in lieu of the Massachusetts board for the purpose of 
ascertaining the suitability of such inmate for a parole permit 
and to report its findings and recommendations as to parole and 
conditions of parole to the board."   
 
3 
 
 
 
 
Massachusetts sentence in another [S]tate."  G. L. c. 127, 
§ 134 (c).  The petitioner is not such an inmate.4  See Murray 
vs. Stempson, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 92-0118 (D.D.C. May 1, 1992) 
(denying petitioner's request for order directing District of 
Columbia Parole Board to aggregate his District of Columbia 
sentences with his Massachusetts sentences). 
 
 
In Murray v. Commonwealth, 455 Mass. 1016, 1016-1017 
(2009), we described the petitioner's history of filing multiple 
improper and ultimately unsuccessful actions in this court to 
challenge his Massachusetts sentences.  We put him "on notice 
that any future attempt to seek extraordinary relief from this 
court, pursuant to G. L. c. 214, § 1; G. L. c. 211, § 3; or 
otherwise, raising like claims may result in appropriate action 
by the court."  Id. at 1017.  We now order, therefore, that 
until such time as the petitioner actually begins serving his 
Massachusetts sentences, he shall not be permitted to file any 
further action in this court challenging the validity or status 
of his sentences or his entitlement to parole, without prior 
approval of a single justice of this court.5 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
James Murray, pro se. 
 
                     
 
4 We again "express no view on the merits of the 
petitioner's claims were he to raise them after returning to 
Massachusetts to begin serving his sentences."  Murray, 451 
Mass. at 1003 n.3. 
 
 
5 We decline to address additional issues raised by the 
petitioner on appeal that were not raised before the single 
justice, or to consider materials that were not included in the 
record before her.  See Hines, petitioner, 432 Mass. at 1005 
n.1, citing Milton v. Boston, 427 Mass. 1016, 1017 (1998), and 
Campiti v. Commonwealth, 426 Mass. 1004, 1005 (1997).