Case Title: Wilson v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12664

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2020-02-11T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12664 
 
RAYMOND WILSON, THIRD  vs.  THE STOP & SHOP 
SUPERMARKET COMPANY, LLC. 
 
 
February 11, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Dismissal of appeal. 
 
 
 
Raymond Wilson, III, appeals from a judgment of the county 
court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, in which he sought review of certain rulings 
in a personal injury action that he commenced in the District 
Court.  Wilson's complaint in that action was dismissed by a 
judge in the District Court.  His appeal from the judgment of 
dismissal was also dismissed, by a second District Court judge, 
because Wilson had failed to take the steps required of him as 
an appellant under the applicable rules of appellate procedure 
(District/Municipal Courts Rules for Appellate Division 
Appeals).  Two subsequent attempts to appeal were dismissed as 
well.  In addition, a judge in the District Court issued an 
order precluding Wilson from filing anything further without 
prior judicial authorization.  We affirm the judgment of the 
county court. 
 
 
"In seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, it was 
[Wilson's] burden to create a record -- not merely to allege but 
to demonstrate, i.e., to provide copies of the lower court 
docket entries and any relevant pleadings, motions, orders, 
recordings, transcripts, or other parts of the lower court 
record necessary to substantiate [his] allegations -- showing 
both a substantial claim of violation of a substantive right and 
that the violation could not have been remedied in the normal 
course of a trial and appeal or by other available means."  
Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. denied sub nom. 
2 
 
 
Davis v. Tabachnick, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998), and cases cited.  
Wilson did not do so, but simply filed a two-page handwritten 
petition asserting, without any supporting documents or other 
substantiation, that the District Court judge had acted 
improperly.  The single justice would have been justified in 
denying the petition on this basis alone. 
 
 
Moreover, "[i]t is incumbent on a party seeking exercise of 
this court's extraordinary power of general superintendence 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3, to demonstrate the absence or 
inadequacy of alternative means of redress."  Lasher v. Lasher, 
474 Mass. 1003, 1004 (2016).  Wilson "failed to allege, much 
less demonstrate, that the . . . judge's order[s] . . . could 
not adequately be addressed through the ordinary appellate 
process."  Id.  All the rulings he challenges can be rectified, 
if appropriate, on appeal to the Appellate Division of the 
District Court, including any claim that his attempt to pursue 
such an appeal was itself wrongly dismissed.1 
 
 
Finally, it appears that Wilson did not serve his petition 
on the opposing party, that is, the defendant in the underlying 
District Court action, despite being specifically instructed by 
the county court clerk's office to do so.  See S.J.C. Rule 2:22, 
422 Mass. 1302 (1996) (petitioner must "name as respondents and 
make service upon all parties to the proceeding before the lower 
court"). 
 
 
Given these serious deficiencies in Wilson's petition, the 
single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by 
denying extraordinary relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
                     
 
1 We cannot tell from the sparse material before us whether 
Wilson was attempting at any point to appeal from the dismissal 
of his original appeal from the District Court judgment.  He had 
a right to pursue such an appeal, which cannot be preempted by a 
judge or a clerk in the District Court.  Skandha v. Clerk of the 
Superior Court for Civil Business in Suffolk County, 472 Mass. 
1017, 1018-1019 (2015), and cases cited.  Likewise, he had a 
right to appeal from the order of the District Court that 
precluded him from further filings without prior judicial 
authorization.  See Cooper v. CVS Pharmacy, 450 Mass. 1024, 1025 
(2008); Russell v. Nichols, 434 Mass. 1015, 1015 (2001).  If, in 
fact, either of those particular rights to appeal were 
obstructed, he would have a right to have those appeals 
reinstated. 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
Kelly Wallace Ianelli for the respondent. 
 
Raymond Wilson, III, pro se, submitted a brief.