Title: Streeter v. Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13186 
 
CHRIS C. STREETER  vs.  CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE PROBATE AND FAMILY 
COURT. 
 
 
March 8, 2022. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
Chris C. Streeter appeals from a judgment of the county 
court denying, without a hearing, her petition for relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  In her petition, Streeter sought relief 
pertaining to several cases pending in the Probate and Family 
Court, specifically, an order that the Chief Justice of that 
court assign one or more judges to address outstanding issues in 
those cases.  We need not belabor the details of the cases; it 
suffices to say that Streeter has filed numerous motions that 
remain outstanding.  Her petition was apparently intended to 
spur action on her motions, not to challenge any particular 
interlocutory ruling.1  We affirm the judgment denying relief. 
 
1 Streeter has filed, in the full court, a document styled 
as a "petition for extraordinary relief."  It is unclear whether 
she intended this as a memorandum pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 
as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  That rule requires a party 
challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial court to "set 
forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot 
adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment 
in the trial court or by other available means."  Because it 
appears that Streeter is not challenging any interlocutory 
ruling, but seeking action on her outstanding motions, the rule 
does not apply. 
 
We note as well that instead of preparing a record 
appendix, Streeter has submitted some ninety separate documents, 
mostly copies of dockets and other papers from her Probate and 
2 
 
 
 
"Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, 'is extraordinary and will 
be exercised only in the most exceptional circumstances.' . . . 
Accordingly, we review the single justice's decision for abuse 
of discretion or clear error of law."  Perrier v. Commonwealth, 
489 Mass. 28, 30 (2022), quoting Matthews v. Appeals Court, 444 
Mass. 1007, 1008 (2005).  Streeter has not established any abuse 
of discretion or error of law, as she has not shown any 
entitlement to the order that she seeks.  The single justice was 
not obligated to intercede in the Probate and Family Court's 
management of the protracted litigation in which Streeter has 
been engaged, particularly where the record does not demonstrate 
that she has pursued all available measures to obtain action on 
her motions, such as bringing the delay to the attention of the 
Chief Justice of the Trial Court.  See, e.g., Skandha v. Clerk 
of the Superior Court for Civil Business in Suffolk County, 472 
Mass. 1017, 1018 (2015), citing Zatsky v. Zatsky, 36 Mass. App. 
Ct. 7, 12 (1994); Matthews v. D'Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021, 1022 
(1997).  "[N]o party . . . should expect this court to exercise 
its extraordinary power of general superintendence lightly."  
Randolph v. Commonwealth, 488 Mass. 1, 7 (2021), quoting Aroian 
v. Commonwealth, 483 Mass. 1008, 1009 (2019).  Relief under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, was properly denied.2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Chris C. Streeter, pro se. 
 
Family Court cases.  It was incumbent on her, as the appellant, 
to "prepare and file an appendix to the briefs which shall be 
separately bound."  Mass. R. A. P. 18 (a), as appearing in 481 
Mass. 1637 (2019). 
 
2 In her petition, Streeter did not "name as respondents and 
make service upon all parties to the proceeding before the lower 
court," as required by S.J.C. Rule 2:22, 422 Mass. 1302 (1996).  
This presents a further reason not to disturb the denial of 
relief.