Title: Kifor v. Commonwealth

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13339 
 
IMRE KIFOR  vs.  COMMONWEALTH & others.1 
 
 
December 1, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Civil, Action in the nature of certiorari. 
 
 
 
Imre Kifor appeals from a judgment of the county court 
denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief in the 
nature of certiorari under G. L. c. 249, § 4.  We affirm the 
judgment. 
 
 
Kifor has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to 
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), although it 
is unclear what, if any, interlocutory ruling of the trial court 
is being challenged.  Regardless of whether the rule technically 
applies here, it is clear that the single justice neither erred 
nor abused his discretion by denying relief.  In his petition, 
Kifor was apparently seeking to have this court intervene in 
proceedings in the Probate and Family Court concerning the 
custody and support of his children.  Such proceedings are 
reviewable in the ordinary appellate process.2  "It would be hard 
to find any principle more fully established in our practice 
than the principle that neither mandamus nor certiorari is to be 
used as a substitute for ordinary appellate procedure or used at 
 
 
1 Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court 
Department, Barbara A. Duchesne, and Cynthia S. Oulton. 
 
 
2 Indeed, Kifor has invoked the ordinary appellate process 
in this matter in the past.  See Kifor v. Duchesne, 101 Mass. 
App. Ct. 1111, S.C., 490 Mass. 1106 (2022).  The fact that the 
Appeals Court did not rule in Kifor's favor does not entitle him 
to additional review. 
2 
 
any time when there is another adequate remedy."  D'Errico v. 
Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers & Salespersons, 490 
Mass. 1008, 1008 (2022), quoting Matter of Burnham, 484 Mass. 
1036, 1036 (2020). 
 
 
This is the third time that Kifor has sought some form of 
extraordinary relief from this court, all arising from the same 
litigation between him and the mothers of his children.3  See 
Kifor v. Commonwealth (No. 2), 490 Mass. 1019 (2022); Kifor v. 
Commonwealth (No. 1), 490 Mass 1003 (2022).  Each time, we have 
clearly advised him that he is not entitled to extraordinary 
relief, whether pursuant to the certiorari statute, our 
superintendent powers under G. L. c. 211, § 3, or otherwise, to 
correct errors that are reviewable in the ordinary appellate 
process.  Kifor is on notice that further attempts to obtain 
such relief in like circumstances may result in the imposition 
of sanctions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Imre Kifor, pro se. 
 
 
3 We are also advised that Kifor has filed further petitions 
in the county court.  Those petitions are not before us now, and 
we express no view as to them.