Title: Murphy v. Superior 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12820 
 
SEAN MURPHY  vs.  SUPERIOR COURT. 
 
 
February 21, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Declaratory Relief.  Practice, Criminal, Disqualification 
of judge. 
 
 
 
The plaintiff, Sean Murphy, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his requests for 
declaratory relief pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, § 1.  We affirm. 
 
 
Murphy filed a complaint in the county court, seeking a 
declaration that a Superior Court judge, who was then presiding 
over a criminal matter in which he was the defendant, should be 
disqualified from hearing his criminal matter, and more 
generally, that the judge should be disqualified from hearing 
any criminal matters in Bristol County.  A single justice of 
this court denied relief, and Murphy now appeals. 
 
 
Murphy has filed a memorandum with this court in an attempt 
to comply with S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 
(2001), which requires a petitioner seeking relief from an 
interlocutory ruling of the trial court to "set forth the 
reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately 
be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the 
trial court or by other available means."  By its terms, that 
rule does not apply here, as Murphy is not appealing from an 
interlocutory ruling of the trial court.  However, because it is 
apparent from Murphy's submissions that the single justice 
properly denied relief, we take this opportunity to affirm the 
judgment. 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
As a threshold matter, Murphy's request to have the judge 
removed from his criminal matter is moot, as Murphy has pleaded 
guilty, thus disposing of the criminal charge.  In any event, 
the single justice was correct to deny declaratory relief on 
this issue.  This court has recognized "a prohibition against 
issuing declaratory decrees concerning a pending criminal 
prosecution."  Norcisa v. Selectmen of Provincetown, 368 Mass. 
161, 172 (1975).  Any contrary rule "would encourage 
fragmentation and proliferation of litigation and disrupt the 
orderly administration of the criminal law."  Id.  Moreover, 
Murphy had another available remedy, which was to file a motion 
for recusal of the judge in his then-pending criminal matter.  
Such a proceeding would have afforded Murphy "a fully adequate 
remedy."  Dubois v. Chief of Police of Watertown, 389 Mass. 488, 
489 (1983), citing Norcisa, supra at 168-173.  See Jian Jiang v. 
Qilun Liu, 481 Mass. 1024, 1024 (2019) (holding that there is no 
reason denial of motion to recuse could not be adequately 
addressed in direct appeal from adverse judgment). 
 
 
Murphy's request for a general declaration that the judge 
should not sit on any criminal matters in Bristol County is also 
patently without merit.  Murphy has no right as a matter of law 
to seek an order compelling a judge's recusal from any case 
other than his own.  And to the extent his request can be seen 
as an attempt to enforce the Code of Judicial Conduct through a 
private action, he has no right to do that either.  See Matter 
of the Petition of Smallwood, 470 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2014) 
("there is no private right of action to obtain discipline of a 
judge"). 
 
 
The single justice properly declined to exercise 
jurisdiction under G. L. c. 231A. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Sean Murphy, pro se.