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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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; SJCReportersjc.state.ma.us

SJC-12773

JOSÉ L. NEGRÓN vs. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.

January 13, 2020.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

Indigent. Practice, Civil, Costs.

José L. Negrón appeals from a judgment of the county court 

denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. 

c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

Negrón is the plaintiff in a civil action pending in the 

Superior Court in which he is challenging certain regulations of 

the Department of Correction.1 A judge in the Superior Court 

determined that Negrón was indigent and waived the filing fee

for the Superior Court action, but denied his motion to make 

service of process on the defendants via regular mail; the judge

ordered him to make service on all defendants by certified mail 

at his own expense and to return the green receipt card for each 

defendant. The judge also denied Negrón's subsequent motion for 

reconsideration.

Negrón then sought review from a single justice of the 

Appeals Court of the judge's order requiring service of process 

by certified mail, and he requested a waiver of the Appeals 

Court's filing fee for his single justice petition. A single 

justice of the Appeals Court, after reviewing Negrón's affidavit 

of indigency and other information provided pursuant to G. L. 

 

1 The Superior Court case originated as a G. L. c. 211, § 3, 

petition filed by Negrón in the county court. A single justice 

-- not the one who denied relief in the instant case -- ordered 

that the matter be transferred to the Superior Court. That 

petition is not before us.
c. 261, § 29, ordered that Negrón pay a significantly reduced 

filing fee for his petition. Negrón's motion for 

reconsideration of this order was denied, as was his motion for 

leave to appeal from the denial of reconsideration. Contending 

that the reduced amount was nonetheless too high, Negrón then 

filed the instant G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. A single justice 

of this court denied all relief without a hearing.2

The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 

amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which 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."3 Negrón has not 

done so. To the extent that he is challenging the underlying 

interlocutory ruling of the Superior Court requiring him to make 

service by certified mail, his remedy lies with a single justice 

of the Appeals Court, and indeed, as described supra, he is 

pursuing such a remedy.4 To the extent that he is challenging 

the ruling of the single justice of the Appeals Court requiring 

 

2 Action on the petition before the Appeals Court single 

justice, i.e., the request for review of the Superior Court 

order requiring service of process by certified mail, has been 

stayed.

3 Negrón's papers in this court are styled as an 

"application for further appellate review" and a "further 

appellate review brief." Further appellate review is 

inapplicable here, however, where he is appealing from a 

judgment of the county court rather than seeking further review 

after a decision of an Appeals Court panel. We treat his papers 

as a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 

amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).

4 Negrón's filing with the single justice of the Appeals 

Court was entered in that court as a petition pursuant to G. L. 

c. 231, § 118, first par., for which there is a filing fee of 

$315. G. L. c. 262, §§ 4 and 4C. Had it been treated as an 

appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 261, § 27D, from the Superior 

Court's denial of a request by an indigent party for payment by 

the Commonwealth of the certified mail fees, see G. L. c. 261, 

§§ 27A-27G, there would have been no Appeals Court filing fee. 

See http://www.mass.gov/service-details/single-justicepractice[hettps://perma.cc/35XX-KC3B]. The Appeals Court or its 

single justice should ensure that the filing was correctly 

characterized. We express no view as to that.
him to pay a reduced filing fee in connection with his petition 

in that court, rule 2:21 does not apply. Nonetheless, it is 

clear that Negrón has an adequate remedy in the ordinary 

appellate process from the single justice's ruling, "namely an 

appeal to a panel of the Appeals Court from the order[] of the 

single justice[] of the Appeals Court" declining to waive the 

fee outright or to reduce it further.5 See Hunt v. Appeals 

Court, 444 Mass. 460, 463 (2005) (litigant aggrieved by order of 

Appeals Court single justice refusing to waive or reduce filing 

fee has right to appeal single justice's order to panel of 

Appeals Court).

Because Negrón has these remedies in the ordinary appellate 

process, the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion 

by denying extraordinary relief.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 

a memorandum of law.

José L. Negrón, pro se.

 

5 As the single justice of the Appeals Court issued his 

order in March 2019, it is not too late for Negrón to move in 

the Appeals Court for an enlargement of time to file a notice of 

appeal. See Mass. R. A. P. 14 (b), as amended, 378 Mass. 939 

(1979) (enlargement of time to file notice of appeal limited to 

"one year from the date of entry of the . . . order sought to be 

reviewed"). If that motion is allowed, he may then proceed with 

an appeal to a panel of the single justice's order on the 

Appeals Court filing fee.