Title: A.F. v. D.F.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12425
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: April 18, 2018

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12425 
 
A.F.  vs.  D.F. 
 
 
April 18, 2018. 
 
 
Abuse Prevention.  Harassment Prevention.  Supreme Judicial 
Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner appeals from a judgment of a single justice 
of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
The respondent sought an abuse prevention order against the 
petitioner pursuant to G. L. c. 209A.  After a hearing on the 
extension of the temporary ex parte order, a judge in the 
District Court declined to extend the G. L. c. 209A order and 
instead issued a one-year harassment prevention order pursuant 
to G. L. c. 258E.  The judge subsequently denied the 
petitioner's motion to reconsider,and the petitioner then filed 
his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court.  The single 
justice denied the petition without a hearing. 
 
 
The petitioner has now filed a memorandum and appendix 
pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), 
but he is not challenging an interlocutory ruling of the trial 
court.  Regardless of whether rule 2:21 applies, however, it is 
clear that the petitioner is not entitled to review pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, because he has an adequate alternative 
remedy.  See O'Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415, 417-418 (2012) 
(appeals from G. L. c. 258E harassment prevention orders to be 
filed in Appeals Court).  The petitioner argues that the normal 
appellate process would be inadequate because of the time it 
would take to pursue the appeal and receive a favorable outcome.  
The remedy for this concern is to seek expedited review in the 
 
 
Appeals Court, a stay of the underlying order pending appeal, or 
both, not through a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in this court. 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
A.F., pro se.