Title: Negron v. Commissioner of Correction
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12773
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: January 13, 2020

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-justice-
practice[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.