Title: Padmanabhan v. Cooke
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12718
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 2019

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12718 
 
BHARANIDHARAN PADMANABHAN  vs.  LORETTA COOKE. 
 
 
December 12, 2019. 
 
 
Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, appeals from a 
judgment of a single justice of the county court denying his 
petition for relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to 
G. L. c. 249, § 4.  We affirm. 
 
 
As best we can tell from the record before us, the 
petitioner commenced an action against the respondent in the 
trial court claiming, among other things, slander, libel, and 
intentional infliction of emotional distress.1  In the course of 
those proceedings, the petitioner sought to have the Attorney 
General "disqualified" from representing the respondent.  A 
judge denied the petitioner's motion, but the petitioner 
persisted, eventually leading the judge to state, in denying a 
motion for reconsideration of the issue, that the petitioner's 
continued efforts on the issue were "vexatious."  The judge 
further stated that "the Court will be mindful of such notice in 
consideration of any further effort on the issue and any request 
for costs by the [respondent] in responding to any such further 
efforts." 
 
 
The petitioner thereafter filed a petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., with a single justice of the 
Appeals Court, seeking review of the denial of the motion for 
reconsideration and complaining about the trial court judge's 
                                                 
 
1 Although the details of these claims are not apparent in 
the record before us, they appear to stem, in some fashion, from 
the suspension of the petitioner's license to practice medicine. 
2 
 
 
threat of sanctions.  An Appeals Court single justice denied the 
petition on the basis that it was not timely filed.  The 
petitioner then filed his certiorari petition in the county 
court, which a single justice of this court denied without a 
hearing. 
 
 
Certiorari review is designed to "correct errors in 
proceedings which are not . . . otherwise reviewable by motion 
or by appeal."  G. L. c. 249, § 4.  The petitioner has not, and 
cannot, demonstrate that his claims were not otherwise 
reviewable.  To the extent that he seeks review of the trial 
court judge's denial of his motion for reconsideration, he has 
already sought such review pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, 
first par., and has been denied relief by a single justice of 
the Appeals Court.  Picciotto v. Appeals Court (No. 2), 457 
Mass. 1002, 1002, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1044 (2010) (denying 
certiorari review where petitioners had other adequate avenue 
for review).2  He is not entitled as of right to any further 
interlocutory review.  To the extent that he seeks review of the 
judge's warning that certain future filings in that court may 
subject the petitioner to sanctions, no such sanctions have yet 
been imposed.  If a judge in the trial court does, in his or her 
discretion, sanction the petitioner in the future, the 
petitioner will be able to challenge that ruling. 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 249, § 4. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Bharanidharan Padmanabhan, pro se. 
 
Mark P. Sutliff, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
respondent. 
 
                                                 
 
2 The petitioner's certiorari petition, filed after a single 
justice of the Appeals Court had already denied his petition 
pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., was nothing more 
than a second attempt to obtain review of the challenged ruling 
of the trial court.