Title: Snell v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institute, Shirley

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12807 
 
EMORY G. SNELL, JR.  vs.  SUPERINTENDENT, MASSACHUSETTS 
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, SHIRLEY. 
 
 
May 26, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
In the county court, Emory G. Snell, Jr. (petitioner), 
requested declaratory, injunctive, and other relief concerning 
certain inmate mail regulations.  A single justice of this court 
treated the requests as a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, and denied relief.  The petitioner appeals.  We affirm. 
 
 
The petitioner has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant 
to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  "Even 
though rule 2:21 does not apply here, because he is not 
challenging any interlocutory rulings of the trial court, it is 
clear that he is not entitled to relief.  Regardless of how [the 
petitioner] styles his filing, . . . his avenue for seeking 
relief is in the Superior Court in the first instance."  Vinnie 
v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Norfolk, 482 Mass. 
1028, 1028 (2019).  The petitioner's memorandum does nothing to 
establish the inadequacy of the ordinary process of trial and 
appeal.  See Guzzi v. Secretary of Pub. Safety, 450 Mass. 1016, 
1016 (2007). 
 
 
The "single justice acted well within [her] discretion in 
concluding that the case presented no occasion to exercise the 
court's extraordinary authority to grant the preliminary 
injunction," Love v. Commissioner of Correction, 418 Mass. 1003, 
1004 (1994), or otherwise to grant the relief requested by the 
petitioner in the first instance. 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Emory G. Snell, Jr., pro se.