Title: Myrick v. Appeals Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12402 
 
KYL V. MYRICK  vs.  APPEALS COURT.1 
 
 
January 29, 2019. 
 
 
Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, Rescript from 
appellate court. 
 
 
 
Kyl V. Myrick appeals from a judgment of the county court 
denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief in the 
nature of mandamus.  In his petition, Myrick sought an order 
directing the Appeals Court to recall the rescript that it 
issued after affirming, in an unpublished decision, a final 
judgment of the Superior Court.2  See Myrick v. Harvard Univ., 91 
Mass. App. Ct. 1109 (2017) (affirming dismissal of complaint on 
statute of limitations grounds).  We affirm. 
 
 
"Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is 
granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is 
available."  Montefusco v. Commonwealth, 452 Mass. 1015, 1015 
(2008), quoting Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 
(2006).  "When a single justice denies relief in the nature of 
mandamus, '[her] determination will rarely be overturned.'"  
Montefusco, supra, quoting Mack v. Clerk of the Appeals Court, 
427 Mass. 1011, 1012 (1998).  "A complaint in the nature of 
mandamus is 'a call to a government official to perform a clear 
cut duty,' and the remedy is limited to requiring action on the 
part of the government official."  Montefusco, supra, quoting 
                     
 
1 The real party in interest, Harvard University, which was 
the defendant in the Superior Court action, was not named in the 
petition in the county court. 
 
 
2 This was apparently intended to enable Myrick to file a 
belated application for further appellate review.   
2 
 
 
Simmons v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Boston Div. of the Hous. 
Court Dep't, 448 Mass. 57, 59-60 (2006).  The Appeals Court had 
no duty to recall the rescript, which court records show was 
duly issued in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure.3  
To the extent that Myrick seeks an order directing the Appeals 
Court to reverse the judgment of the Superior Court, "mandamus 
will not issue to direct a judicial officer to make a particular 
decision or to review, or reverse, a decision made by a judicial 
officer on an issue properly before him or her."  Montefusco, 
supra, quoting Callahan v. Superior Court, 410 Mass. 1001, 1001 
(1991).  Moreover, mandamus is not "to be used as a substitute 
for ordinary appellate procedure."  Myrick v. Superior Court 
Dep't, 479 Mass. 1012, 1012 (2018), quoting Rines v. Justices of 
the Superior Court, 330 Mass. 368, 371 (1953).  Contrary to 
Myrick's suggestion, the fact that he had a separate appeal 
pending here in no way barred him from pursuing the ordinary 
process by applying for further appellate review. 
 
 
In sum, Myrick has not demonstrated any entitlement to 
relief in the nature of mandamus.  The single justice properly 
denied relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Kyl V. Myrick, pro se. 
                     
 
3 Both in his brief and in his petition, Myrick suggests 
repeatedly that the doctrine of present execution has been 
violated in this matter.  The doctrine of present execution 
authorizes appellate review of interlocutory orders of the trial 
court in certain narrowly limited circumstances, see, e.g., 
Patel v. Martin, 481 Mass. 29, 32 (2018), and has no 
applicability to an appeal from a final judgment of the trial 
court.