Title: Cooper v. CVS Pharmacy

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12679 
 
JOHN COOPER  vs.  CVS PHARMACY. 
 
 
May 17, 2019. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
In 2008, we affirmed a judgment of the county court denying 
John Cooper's petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  
Cooper v. CVS Pharmacy, 450 Mass. 1024, 1025 (2008).  At that 
time, Cooper appeared to be seeking relief from a 1998 order of 
the Superior Court prohibiting him from filing claims in that 
court without prior review by an attorney (or at least an 
attempt to obtain such review) and the approval of the regional 
administrative justice.  Id. at 1025.  The order appears to have 
been based on his history of frivolous filings.  Nothing in the 
record before us indicates that the 1998 order has been vacated 
or modified.  In 2017, Cooper resumed filing materials in the 
county court, under the same docket number as his previous 
filings, again apparently seeking to reopen a number of civil 
cases commenced by him in the Superior Court, all of which were 
dismissed.1  A single justice of this court denied Cooper's 
request, and Cooper appeals.  We affirm. 
 
 
Cooper has filed several handwritten memoranda in the full 
court and a request to treat his original county court papers as 
his record appendix in this appeal.  It is clear from these 
materials that he has established no basis for relief.  Nothing 
in the materials, which are virtually indecipherable but appear 
to make general allegations of mistreatment without offering any 
specific facts, presents any ground for disturbing the judgment 
                     
 
1 Court records suggest that Cooper has at times been able 
to file complaints in the Superior Court, notwithstanding the 
1998 order. 
2 
 
of the single justice.  Moreover, the dismissal of each case in 
the Superior Court was subject to appeal to the Appeals Court in 
the ordinary process.  Our superintendence power is not "a 
substitute for the normal appellate process or . . . an 
additional layer of appellate review after the normal process 
has run its course."  Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 
Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005). 
 
 
This appeal is not materially different from Cooper's 
previous appeal in 2008.  We therefore order the clerk of the 
county court not to accept any further filings from him in this 
case.  Additionally, we place Cooper on notice that any further 
attempt to invoke our general superintendence power in 
circumstances like this in other cases may result in an 
appropriate sanction from this court, including a possible 
restriction on his future filings. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
John Cooper, pro se.