Title: A.F. v. D.F.

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12686 
 
A.F.  vs.  D.F. 
 
 
December 11, 2019. 
 
 
Harassment Prevention.  Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence 
of inferior courts. 
 
 
The petitioner, A.F., appeals from a judgment of a single 
justice of this court denying his petition for extraordinary 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
This is the petitioner's second appeal to the full court 
regarding the denial of G. L. c. 211, § 3, relief in connection 
with a harassment prevention order issued against him in the 
Orange Division of the District Court Department.  This court 
summarized the early procedural history of the case in its prior 
opinion: 
 
"The respondent sought an abuse prevention order 
against the petitioner pursuant to G. L. c. 209A.  
After a hearing on the extension of the temporary ex 
parte order, a judge in the District Court declined to 
extend the G. L. c. 209A order and instead issued a 
one-year harassment prevention order pursuant to G. L. 
c. 258E.  The judge subsequently denied the 
petitioner's motion to reconsider, and the petitioner 
then filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the 
county court.  The single justice denied the petition 
without a hearing." 
 
A.F. v. D.F., 479 Mass. 1015, 1015 (2018).  In that opinion, the 
court affirmed the denial of relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, and 
instructed the petitioner that his remedy lay in the Appeals 
Court.  Id. at 1016.  Because the petitioner had expressed 
2 
 
 
 
concern "that the normal appellate process would be inadequate 
because of the time it would take to pursue the appeal and 
obtain a favorable outcome," this court also informed the 
petitioner that "[t]he remedy for this concern is to seek 
expedited review in the Appeals Court, a stay of the underlying 
order pending appeal, or both, not through a G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition in this court."  Id. 
 
Following the issuance of that opinion, rather than seek 
review by the Appeals Court, the petitioner filed a motion to 
vacate the harassment prevention order in the District Court.  
After several months passed without a ruling, he filed a 
petition in the county court, seeking an order to compel the 
District Court judge to rule on his motion.  The District Court 
judge subsequently ruled on the motion -- denying it -- while 
the petition for relief in the county court was pending.1 
 
The petitioner alleges that he filed a notice of appeal in 
the District Court, appealing from the denial of his motion to 
vacate the harassment prevention order.  The notice of appeal 
appears in the petitioner's addendum, but it does not appear as 
an entry on the District Court docket. 
 
Subsequently, a hearing was held in the District Court at 
which the one-year harassment prevention order was extended and 
made permanent.  Rather than file a notice of appeal in the 
District Court with respect to the permanent order, the 
petitioner filed another petition for extraordinary relief in 
the county court, seeking a stay of the order and requesting to 
have the matter transferred to the county court. 
 
The single justice denied the petition without a hearing 
and instructed the petitioner, once again, that his appeal from 
such an order lay in the Appeals Court.  In her order, the 
single justice further informed the petitioner that if he had 
failed to file a timely notice of appeal in the District Court, 
he could seek leave from the Appeals Court to file a late notice 
of appeal.  The order also explained that the notice of appeal 
must be filed in the District Court.  Based on a review of the 
District Court docket, it appears that the petitioner has yet to 
pursue the remedy identified by the single justice. 
 
                                                          
 
 
1 The single justice subsequently denied that petition as 
moot. 
 
3 
 
 
 
We affirm the single justice's denial of relief for the 
same reasons that we affirmed the denial of relief in our 
previous opinion:  "it is clear that the petitioner is not 
entitled to review pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, because he has 
an adequate alternative remedy."  A.F., 479 Mass. at 1015-1016, 
citing O'Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415, 417–418 (2012) 
(appeals from G. L. c. 258E harassment prevention orders to be 
filed in Appeals Court).  The single justice did not err or 
abuse her discretion in denying relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
A.F., pro se.