Title: In re Two Applications for a Criminal Complaint

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13373 
 
IN THE MATTER OF TWO APPLICATIONS FOR A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT. 
 
 
October 11, 2023. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Complaint, Standing. 
 
 
 
The petitioner appeals from a judgment of the county court 
denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
The petitioner filed in the District Court an application 
for a criminal complaint charging a certain individual with 
witness intimidation, G. L. c. 268, § 13B, and unlawful 
wiretapping, G. L. c. 272, § 99 C 1.  An assistant clerk-
magistrate in the District Court found no probable cause and did 
not issue the requested complaint.  The petitioner filed a 
motion for redetermination.  A judge in the District Court 
denied that motion.  Thereafter, alleging that the individual 
had committed further unlawful acts, the petitioner filed 
another application for a criminal complaint, this time in the 
Boston Municipal Court (BMC), charging the individual with 
witness intimidation.  The clerk-magistrate of the BMC found no 
probable cause and did not issue the requested complaint.  The 
petitioner has not sought redetermination in the BMC.  The 
petitioner's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, as supplemented,1 
sought relief pertaining to both the District Court and BMC 
proceedings and particularly sought the issuance of criminal 
complaints.  The single justice denied relief without addressing 
the merits. 
 
1 The petitioner initially filed a petition concerning only 
the District Court proceedings.  The single justice permitted 
him to supplement his petition to include the BMC proceedings. 
2 
 
 
The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion 
by denying relief.  "As we have explained, '[a] single justice 
considering a petition filed pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
performs a two-step inquiry. . . .  The first step requires the 
single justice to decide "whether to employ the court's power of 
general superintendence to become involved in the matter," . . . 
or, stated differently, to "decide, in his or her discretion, 
whether to review 'the substantive merits of the . . . 
petition.'"'"  Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 492 Mass. 1013, 1014 
(2023), quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 487 Mass. 1007, 1008 
(2021).  See Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 24 (2019). 
"The single justice need not take the second step (which is to 
resolve the petition on its substantive merits) 'if the 
petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy or if the single 
justice determines, in his or her discretion, that the subject 
of the petition is not sufficiently important and extraordinary 
as to require general superintendence intervention.'"  Brown, 
supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Dilworth, 485 Mass. 1001, 1002 
(2020).  "Where, as here, the single justice denied relief 
without reaching the substantive merits of the . . . petition, 
'it is incumbent on the [petitioner] to show that on the record 
before him, the single justice was required to exercise the 
court's superintendence power:  that is, that the [petitioner] 
had no adequate alternative remedy and that the single justice 
abused his discretion by failing to reach the merits of [his] 
petition.'"  Monteiro, supra, quoting Brown, supra.  The 
petitioner's complaint is that the clerks-magistrate of the 
District Court and the BMC considered his applications, found 
they were not supported by probable cause, and declined to issue 
the requested criminal complaints.  The decision to issue or not 
to issue a criminal complaint is a routine matter in those 
courts.  The single justice was not obligated to exercise this 
court's extraordinary superintendence power in these 
circumstances. 
 
Even considering the merits, the petitioner fares no 
better.  "It is well established that 'a private citizen lacks a 
judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or 
nonprosecution of another.'"  Matter of an Application for a 
Criminal Complaint, 477 Mass. 1010, 1011 (2017), quoting Ellis, 
petitioner, 460 Mass. 1020, 1020-1021 (2011).  "For this reason, 
'we have consistently declined to review, under the authority 
given to us by G. L. c. 211, § 3, refusals to issue 
complaints.'"  Matter of an Application for a Criminal 
Complaint, supra, quoting Bradford v. Knights, 427 Mass. 748, 
752 (1998).  In our system, "[a] private party's rights with 
3 
 
respect to the criminal complaint process are limited to the 
filing of an application and court action on that application.  
Once a private party alerts the court of the alleged criminal 
activity through the filing of an application and the court 
responds to that application, the private party's rights have 
been satisfied."  Victory Distribs., Inc. v. Ayer Div. of the 
Dist. Court Dep't, 435 Mass. 136, 141 (2001).  The petitioner 
filed his applications, and the District Court and the BMC acted 
on them.  He has no standing to obtain extraordinary relief in 
this matter.2  Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint, 
supra. 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
The petitioner, pro se. 
 
2 We express no view as to whether probable cause exists to 
charge the individual with witness intimidation or any other 
offense.