Title: Anderson 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12628 
 
NEIL ANDERSON  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
December 11, 2019. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
The petitioner, Neil Anderson, appeals from the judgment of 
a single justice of this court denying, without a hearing, his 
petition for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, and 
from the single justice's order denying his motion for 
reconsideration.  We affirm. 
 
In the petition, Anderson claimed that a Superior Court 
judge who presided in a criminal case against him had engaged in 
judicial misconduct –- specifically, that the judge forged 
certain documents to assist the prosecution.  The single justice 
correctly denied relief because Anderson, who pleaded guilty to 
several charges in the criminal case, and who had not filed a 
postconviction motion to withdraw his pleas, "failed to show he 
lacked an adequate alternative to relief under G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3."  Watson v. Appeals Court, 456 Mass. 1027, 1027 (2010), 
citing Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 
(2005) (exercise of extraordinary superintendence power not "a 
substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide 
an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process 
has run its course").1  Moreover, Anderson has "failed to provide 
                                                          
 
 
1 We note that Anderson twice availed himself of the 
opportunity to file a complaint with the Commission on Judicial 
Conduct.  The commission found no basis to investigate the 
complaints, observing that under G. L. c. 211C, § 2 (4), 
"Commission proceedings shall not be a substitute for an 
appeal."  Anderson has no private right of action to have those 
2 
 
 
 
any measure of record support for his claims of judicial 
misconduct."  Watson, supra, citing Fogarty v. Commonwealth, 406 
Mass. 103, 106–107 (1989) ("Clearly . . . an unsupported charge 
of . . . judicial misconduct fail[s] to demonstrate a 
substantial claim . . . necessary to justify the extraordinary 
relief of G. L. c. 211, § 3" [quotation omitted]).  There was no 
error of law or abuse of discretion by the single justice. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Neil Anderson, pro se. 
 
Mary O'Neil, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
                                                          
 
determinations reviewed by this court.  Matter of Smallwood, 470 
Mass. 1018, 1019 (2014).