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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12854

WILLIAM ROBERTS vs. HINGHAM DIVISION OF THE 

DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT & others.1

October 14, 2020.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 

Practice, Criminal, Complaint.

The petitioner, William Roberts, appeals from a judgment of 

a single justice of this court denying his petition for 

extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

The petition arises from a criminal case that has been 

pending against Roberts since April 2016.2 The criminal case was 

commenced in the Hingham Division of the District Court 

Department and has been transferred twice, first to the Brockton 

Division in August 2019, and then to the Plymouth Division in 

September 2019, where it remains pending. The transfers appear 

to have been prompted by the fact that Roberts has sought 

criminal complaints against many of the judges, prosecutors, 

 

1 Brockton, Plymouth, and Stoughton Divisions of the

District Court Department, various court personnel, and seven 

judges; district attorney for the Plymouth district and four 

assistant district attorneys; and Scituate police department and 

three of its officers.

2 Roberts is charged with one count of assault and battery 

by means of a dangerous weapon on a person sixty years of age or 

older, one count of assault and battery on an elderly or 

disabled person, two counts of malicious destruction of 

property, and one count of threatening to commit a crime.
2

police officers, and others involved in his criminal case, 

creating a potential conflict of interest. 

In September 2019, Roberts filed in the county court a

"Petition, Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, [§] 3, to Inform the Court 

of Judicial Misconduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Alleged 

Criminal Activities, General Malfeasance, Denial of Due Process 

Rights, and to Seek Remedies and Orders," along with a request 

for continuance of a hearing that had been scheduled on his 

applications for criminal complaints. A single justice denied 

the request for continuance and took the petition under 

advisement. Roberts submitted a number of additional filings, 

including additional exhibits, an addendum to the petition with 

a memorandum of law, and a further petition pursuant to 

G. L. c. 211, § 3. Some of the respondents filed an opposition, 

and Roberts filed a response to the opposition. 

The thrust of Roberts's claims is that the respondents have 

engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of due process in his 

criminal matter and in his efforts to apply for criminal 

complaints, among other things, by failing to rule on certain 

discovery motions or to order certain discovery, by delaying his 

trial in violation of his constitutional right to a speedy 

trial, by preventing him from filing applications for criminal 

complaints against certain individuals, and by failing to allow 

him adequate time to prepare for the hearing on his applications 

for criminal complaints.3

The single justice denied the petition without a hearing, 

and Roberts now appeals.4 On appeal, Roberts argues that the 

single justice abused his discretion in denying relief because 

the single justice "was presented with more than sufficient 

evidence that [Roberts] was deprived of his Due Process Rights

in the District Court(s) via Prosecutorial Misconduct, Judicial 

Misconduct, and other forms of malfeasance." Roberts further 

 

3 After his request for continuance was denied, Roberts 

failed to attend the scheduled hearing, and his applications for 

criminal complaints were denied by the clerk-magistrate 

presiding over the hearing.

4 Roberts has not filed a record appendix as required by 

Mass. R. A. P. 18, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019). 

Although we do not base our decision on that omission, we remind 

all litigants, whether or not represented by counsel, that they 

are required to comply with the rules of court.

 
3

argues that he lacked an adequate remedy in the trial court and 

in the normal course of appeal because many of his motions were 

ignored, the case was transferred two times in ninety days, and 

two judges recused themselves for bias.

"General superintendence relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, 

§ 3, is extraordinary. We will not disturb the single justice's 

denial of relief absent a clear error of law or abuse of 

discretion." Culley v. Cato, 460 Mass. 1009, 1010 (2011). "A 

petitioner seeking relief under the statute must demonstrate 

both a substantial claim of violation of [his or her] 

substantive rights and error that cannot be remedied under the 

ordinary review process" (quotations and citation omitted). Id. 

Here, Roberts had adequate alternative avenues to seek the 

relief he requests in connection with the criminal case against 

him. See, e.g., Culley, 460 Mass. at 1010-1011 ("A claim that a 

judge should have recused himself or that a ruling should be 

vacated due to bias or other misconduct on the part of the judge 

is generally one that can adequately be raised in the ordinary 

course of appeal"); Lewis v. Commonwealth, 460 Mass. 1008, 1008 

(2011) (affirming denial of relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, 

§ 3, where claimed discovery violations could be remedied on 

direct appeal from criminal conviction); Stevens v. 

Commonwealth, 450 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2007) (criminal defendant 

may seek to vindicate his or her right to speedy trial through 

motion in trial court, and if violation occurs, it can be 

remedied on appeal from adverse judgment).

With respect to his applications for criminal complaints, 

Roberts has no statutory right to appeal from or to seek 

rehearing or review of the denial of those complaints by a 

clerk-magistrate, see Bradford v. Knights, 427 Mass. 748, 750 

(1998), citing G. L. c. 218, §§ 35, 35A, and this court has 

"consistently declined to review, under the authority given to 

us by G. L. c. 211, § 3, refusals to issue complaints," 

Bradford, supra at 752. However, as a matter of District Court 

practice, Roberts had an opportunity to request a

redetermination of the matter by a judge. See standard 3:22 of 

the District Court Standards of Judicial Practice: The 

Complaint Procedure (amended Oct. 1, 2008). 

In sum, the extraordinary remedy of general superintendence 

was not required in light of these alternatives, and the single 

justice correctly denied the petition on that basis.

Judgment affirmed.
4

The case was submitted on briefs.

William Roberts, pro se.

Abrisham Eshghi, Assistant Attorney General, for Hingham 

Division of the District Court Department & others.

Arthur J. Roberts, pro se, amicus curiae, submitted a 

brief.