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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13481

HAMID REZA ARDANEH vs. COMMONWEALTH.

November 7, 2023.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

The petitioner, Hamid Reza Ardaneh, is awaiting trial on 

indictments for rape, strangulation or suffocation, and other 

offenses. See Ardaneh v. Commonwealth, 492 Mass. 1019, 1019 

(2023)(Ardaneh [No. 3]). Acting on his own behalf, he filed 

papers in the county court citing G. L. c. 211, § 3 (general 

superintendence); G. L. c. 249, § 5 (relief in the nature of 

certiorari); G. L. c. 278, § 28E (certain interlocutory 

appeals); 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) (interlocutory appeals in Federal 

court); and Mass. R. Crim. P. 15, as amended, 476 Mass. 1501 

(2017) (certain interlocutory appeals), seeking review of the 

denial of various pretrial motions and correction of other 

alleged errors.1 A single justice of this court considered the 

papers and denied all requests for relief, and Ardaneh appeals. 

We affirm.

After his appeal was entered in this court, Ardaneh filed a 

brief, as well as a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. 

Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). That rule applies 

when a single justice "denies relief from an interlocutory 

ruling in the trial court," and requires the appellant 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." Id. This 

obligation coincides with the burden borne by a petitioner

1 Among the papers were a motion to discharge counsel and a 

motion to recuse the Superior Court judge. We consider both 

motions pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.
2

seeking extraordinary relief to demonstrate the absence or 

inadequacy of alternative remedies. See, e.g., Ardaneh (No. 3), 

492 Mass. at 1020; Chawla v. Appeals Court, 482 Mass. 1001, 1002 

(2019). Regardless of whether rule 2:21 applies to all of 

Ardaneh's claims, a review of his submissions and the record 

before the single justice leads us to conclude that the single 

justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying 

relief.

This is the fourth time that Ardaneh has sought some form 

of extraordinary relief from this court arising out of the same

underlying criminal proceedings. In each of the three prior 

appeals, the court affirmed the judgments denying relief. See 

Ardaneh (No. 3), 492 Mass. at 1019; Ardaneh v. Commonwealth, 487 

Mass. 1030, 1031 (2021) (Ardaneh [No. 2]); Ardaneh v. 

Commonwealth, 486 Mass. 1005, 1006 (2020) (Ardaneh [No. 1]). 

Each time, we concluded that Ardaneh failed to demonstrate that 

review of his claims could not adequately be obtained in the 

trial court or on appeal from any conviction. See Ardaneh (No. 

3), 492 Mass. at 1021; Ardaneh (No. 2), 487 Mass. at 1030, 

quoting Ardaneh (No. 1), 486 Mass. at 1006 ("to the extent that 

Ardaneh seeks relief 'from what he perceive[s] to be general 

injustices done to or imposed on him' in the trial court, '[h]is

claims [do] not present a situation warranting extraordinary 

superintendence relief directly from this court'"). We reach 

the same conclusion here.

As he has previously, "Ardaneh claims very generally and 

among other things that he has been falsely accused of the 

criminal conduct for which he was indicted; that he has 

exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence; that the evidence 

does not support the indictments; that his constitutional 

rights, including the right to effective assistance of counsel, 

have been violated; and that he has been improperly detained." 

Ardaneh (No. 3), 492 Mass. at 1019. See Ardaneh (No. 2), 487 

Mass. at 1030; Ardaneh (No. 1), 486 Mass. at 1005-1006. Without 

overly retreading the same ground, to the extent that Ardaneh 

seeks review of issues related to motions to suppress, although

he could seek leave from the single justice to "appeal an order 

determining a motion to suppress evidence prior to trial," Mass. 

R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), there is "no right to appeal (as 

[Ardaneh] has done here) from a single justice's denial of leave 

to appeal."2 Azubuko v. Commonwealth, 464 Mass. 1002, 1002 n.1 

2 Ardaneh also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b), which applies to 

interlocutory appeals in Federal court. It does not apply to 

Ardanah's request for an interlocutory appeal in State court. 
3

(2012). He "'can still raise his challenge to the suppression 

ruling [and related issues] in a direct appeal if he is 

convicted after trial.'" Torres v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 

1010, 1011 (2021), quoting Goguen v. Commonwealth, 457 Mass. 

1006, 1006 (2010).

To the extent Ardaneh challenges the denial of a motion to 

dismiss, "'[t]he denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal 

case is not appealable until after trial, and we have indicated 

many times that G. L. c. 211, § 3, may not be used to circumvent 

that rule.'" Ardaneh (No. 3), 492 Mass. at 1020, quoting 

Jackson v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1008, 1009 (2002). The same 

is true when such a motion is predicated on speedy trial claims. 

See Flood v. Commonwealth, 465 Mass. 1015, 1017 (2013) (no right 

to interlocutory review of motion to dismiss on speedy trial 

grounds). Likewise, the denial of Ardaneh's motion to recuse 

the Superior Court judge may be addressed in a direct appeal. 

See Torres, 487 Mass. at 1011. The same is also true of 

Ardaneh's motion to discharge counsel. See Glawson v. 

Commonwealth, 445 Mass. 1021, 1021 (2005). To the extent 

Ardaneh challenges the denial of other motions seeking 

additional forms of relief, or raises other claims of error, he 

similarly failed to demonstrate that review of those matters 

cannot adequately be obtained on direct appeal following any 

conviction. See, e.g., Tavares v. Commonwealth, 481 Mass. 1044, 

1044 (2019). The single justice neither erred nor abused his 

discretion in denying relief.3 See Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 

Mass. 22, 25 (2019).

Cf. Foreign Auto Import, Inc. v. Renault Northeast, Inc., 367 

Mass. 464, 468 (1975).

3 Two other points bear mention. First, with respect to 

Ardaneh's allegation that the single justice failed to "[r]eview 

the motions to [s]uppress, motions to [d]ismiss, and motions to 

[g]rant [a]ppropriate [r]elief," there is nothing to support that 

claim. Moreover, as stated, we have reviewed the record and 

agree with the single justice that relief was not warranted.

Second, to the extent that Ardaneh complains that the trial 

court record was not assembled and transferred to the county 

court, there was no error. To the extent the argument concerns 

Ardaneh's requests for extraordinary relief, it was his "burden 

to create a record -- not merely to allege but to demonstrate, 

i.e., to provide copies of the lower court docket entries and 

any relevant pleadings, motions, orders . . . or other parts of 

the lower court record necessary to substantial [his] 
4

As noted supra, this is Ardaneh's fourth attempt to seek 

extraordinary relief from this court -- arising from the same 

underlying criminal proceedings -- to correct alleged errors 

that may be reviewed on the ordinary course of trial and appeal. 

See Ardaneh (No. 3), 492 Mass. at 1021; Ardaneh (No. 2), 487 

Mass. at 1030; Ardaneh (No. 1), 486 Mass. at 1006. In Ardaneh 

(No. 3), supra, we cautioned Ardaneh that "further attempts to 

obtain [extraordinary] relief in similar circumstances may 

result in the imposition of sanctions." This case was pending 

in the county court at the time Ardaneh (No.3) was decided. 

Although we do not impose sanctions now, we emphasize that 

Ardaneh is on notice that "further attempts to obtain 

[extraordinary relief] in similar circumstances may result in 

the imposition of sanctions." Id.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 

a memorandum of law.

Hamid Reza Ardaneh, pro se.

allegations" that relief is warranted. Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 

Mass. 1001, 1001, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998). To the 

extent the argument concerns Ardaneh's application for 

interlocutory review, the single justice did not authorize an 

interlocutory appeal, see Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), and no 

assembly was required pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 8, as appearing 

in 481 Mass. 1611 (2019). See Ramos v. Commonwealth, 485 Mass. 

1004, 1004 (2020).