Title: Ainooson v. Dep’t of Corr.

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11780 
 
JUSTICE E. AINOOSON  vs.  DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. 
 
 
May 5, 2016. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
 
Justice E. Ainooson appeals from a judgment of the county 
court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
In 2013, Ainooson commenced an action in the Superior Court 
against a number of individual defendants.  After receiving 
additional time to effect service, Ainooson filed a motion to 
waive service or to deem the defendants served.  That motion was 
allowed.  However, the judge vacated her allowance of the motion 
after the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration.  A 
different Superior Court judge subsequently ordered Ainooson to 
make service by regular mail at his own expense, with no further 
extensions to be allowed.  Ainooson's G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition challenged these rulings.  After Ainooson filed his 
petition, but before the single justice ruled on it, a judgment 
entered in the Superior Court dismissing the complaint.  
Ainooson timely filed a notice of appeal in the Superior Court. 
 
 
Ainooson's petition sought relief from one or more 
interlocutory rulings of the trial court.  When he filed his 
petition, his case in the Superior Court was still pending.  As 
noted above, however, the case thereafter went to final 
judgment.  Passing the question whether Ainooson was obligated 
in these circumstances to file a memorandum and appendix 
pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), 
it is clear on the record before us that he had adequate 
alternative remedies, namely, a petition to a single justice of 
2 
 
the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., 
at the time of the Superior Court rulings, see Greco v. Plymouth 
Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996), and a direct appeal 
to the Appeals Court from the final judgment of the Superior 
Court.  Indeed, the record indicates that he is pursuing one of 
those remedies.1  Accordingly, the single justice neither erred 
nor abused his discretion by denying extraordinary relief.  "Our 
general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is 
extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute 
for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an 
additional layer of appellate review after the normal process 
has run its course."  E.g., Fennick v. Kittredge, 460 Mass. 1012 
(2011), quoting Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 
1001, 1001 (2005).   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Justice E. Ainooson, pro se. 
                     
 
1 The Superior Court docket indicates that a notice of 
appeal was filed in November, 2014, about two weeks after the 
complaint was dismissed.  However, it does not appear that the 
appeal has entered in the Appeals Court or that the record has 
been assembled, and there is no explanation for this in the 
record.  Assuming Ainooson has fulfilled his obligations as an 
appellant, we expect that the record will be assembled forthwith 
and that the appeal will proceed in the ordinary course.