Title: Kifor v. Commonwealth

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13427 
 
IMRE KIFOR  vs.  COMMONWEALTH & others.1 
 
 
August 8, 2023. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Imre Kifor filed a petition in the county court seeking 
relief in the nature of certiorari, pursuant to G. L. c. 249, 
§ 4.  A single justice of this court treated the filing as a 
petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, and denied it without a 
hearing.  We agree that extraordinary relief is not warranted 
and affirm. 
 
 
Whether considered under G. L. c. 249, § 4, or G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, Kifor's petition generally sought correction of 
alleged errors in judicial proceedings in the Middlesex Division 
of the Probate and Family Court, including rulings he 
characterizes as "gatekeeper" orders and describes as requiring 
him to obtain permission from that court before filing and 
serving additional pleadings in those proceedings.  Among 
Kifor's claims is the contention that he was precluded from 
seeking review of those orders because one or more of them was 
not timely entered on the Probate and Family Court's docket. 
 
 
After the single justice denied relief and the appeal was 
entered in this court, Kifor filed a memorandum and appendix 
pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  
That rule applies when a single justice of this court "denies 
relief from an interlocutory ruling in the trial court."  Id.  
 
 
1 Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of Revenue, 
Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department, 
Barbara A. Duchesne, and Cynthia S. Oulton.  None of the 
appellees has appeared in this appeal. 
2 
 
 
 
Irrespective of whether the rule applies to all of Kifor's 
myriad claims, we have reviewed his submissions and the record 
before the single justice and conclude that extraordinary relief 
properly was denied. 
 
 
"Regardless of whether relief is requested in the nature of 
certiorari or mandamus, or by means of the court's extraordinary 
power of general superintendence, relief is available only where 
the petitioner demonstrates the absence of an adequate and 
effective alternative remedy."  Wallace v. PNC Bank, N.A., 478 
Mass. 1020, 1020 (2018), citing Picciotto v. Appeals Court (No. 
2), 457 Mass. 1002, 1002, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1044 (2010) 
(certiorari review unavailable where other paths for review 
available); Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006) 
(relief in nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and granted in 
court's discretion only where other relief unavailable); Greco 
v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996) (relief 
properly denied under G. L. c. 211, § 3, "where there are 
[other] adequate and effective routes . . . by which the 
petitioning party may seek relief").  See also Kifor v. 
Commonwealth, 491 Mass. 1002, 1002 (2022). 
 
 
In this case, Kifor failed to carry his burden of 
demonstrating that adequate alternative remedies were not 
available to him.2  To the extent he challenges the entry of 
interlocutory "gatekeeper" orders or any associated 
interlocutory orders denying motions seeking leave to file 
particular materials, he could seek reconsideration of those 
orders or avail himself of the procedures described in G. L. 
 
 
2 It is incumbent on a petitioner for extraordinary relief 
to "'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 . . . or 
other parts of the lower court record necessary to substantiate 
[his] allegations' that [extraordinary] relief is warranted.  
Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. denied, 525 
U.S. 1003 (1998)."  Hunt v. Appeals Court, 441 Mass. 1011, 1011 
(2004) (insufficiency of record provides basis to deny relief 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3).  See Kifor v. Commonwealth (No. 
1), 490 Mass. 1003, 1004 (2022) (petitioner for certiorari has 
burden to demonstrate absence or inadequacy of other remedies); 
Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 n.4 (2006) 
(insufficiency of record provides basis to deny mandamus 
relief).  The record presented in this case is insufficient to 
warrant extraordinary relief in the nature of certiorari, 
providing an additional basis on which to deny the petition. 
3 
 
 
 
c. 231, § 118.  See Kifor v. Commonwealth (No. 1), 490 Mass. 
1003, 1004 (2022).  See also Padmanabhan v. Cooke, 483 Mass. 
1024, 1025 (2019); Picciotto v. Chief Justice of the Superior 
Court¸ 446 Mass. 1015, 1016 (2006).  To the extent he challenges 
the entry of any final order of the Probate and Family Court, he 
may appeal from any such order.  See Bishay v. Land Court Dep't 
of the Trial Court, 477 Mass. 1032, 1033 (2017).  See also Kifor 
(No. 1), supra ("appeals from various decisions and orders of 
the Probate and Family Court" pending before Appeals Court).  To 
the extent Kifor contends that the docketing of any order was 
delayed and that the appellate period lapsed in the interim, a 
motion under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (1) or (6), 365 Mass. 828 
(1974), may provide a remedy.  See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. 
Mondi, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 280, 285-286 (2020); Abbott v. John 
Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 18 Mass. App. Ct. 508, 514-515 
(1984). 
 
 
This is the fifth time that Kifor has sought some form of 
extraordinary relief arising from protracted litigation between 
him and the mothers of his children.  He has been warned 
repeatedly that "further baseless attempts to obtain 
extraordinary relief could result in sanctions."  Kifor v. 
Commonwealth, 492 Mass. 1002 (2023).  Most recently, we directed 
that the 
 
"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.  Cf. Watson [v. 
Justice of the Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep't], 458 
Mass. [1025, 1027 (2011)], and cases cited." 
 
Id. at 1003.  This appeal was pending when that decision issued, 
and therefore is not subject to its requirements.  It is 
nonetheless notable that the appeal has failed for the same 
reasons that prompted this court to institute the above-
described limitations on Kifor's future filings.  Nothing in 
Kifor's petition required extraordinary relief, and the single 
justice was warranted in denying it. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Imre Kifor, pro se.