Title: Briscoe v. LSREF3/AH Chicago Tenant, LLC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12614
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: January 25, 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12614 
 
AKKIMA DANNIELLE BRISCOE  vs.  LSREF3/AH CHICAGO TENANT, LLC.1 
 
 
January 25, 2019. 
 
 
Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, Summary process. 
 
 
 
The plaintiff, Akkima Dannielle Briscoe, appeals from a 
judgment of a single justice of this court dismissing, without a 
hearing, her complaint seeking relief in the nature of mandamus.  
There was no error.2 
 
 
This appeal arises out of the efforts of the defendant, 
LSREF3/AH Chicago Tenant, LLC, to recover possession of and rent 
for certain real property occupied by the plaintiff.  After 
judgment entered for the defendant in a summary process 
proceeding, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the county court 
generally alleging error in connection with that proceeding and 
seeking relief from the judgment that entered.  The single 
justice concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief 
under G. L. c. 249, § 5, because she failed to pursue other 
                                                          
 
 
1 The complaint identifies the defendant as "LSREF3/AH 
Chicago Tenant LLC," whereas the record on appeal contains some 
materials that suggest that "LSREF3" and "AH Chicago Tenant, 
LLC" may be separate entities.  It is unnecessary to our 
decision to resolve the point; our reference to the defendant in 
the singular includes both possibilities. 
   
 
2 The single justice also correctly denied the plaintiff's 
motions to amend the judgment and to impound the record. 
   
2 
 
 
available remedies.3  See Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court 
for Civil Business in Suffolk County, 472 Mass. 1017, 1018 
(2015) (single justice properly denies extraordinary relief 
where litigant failed to pursue available alternative remedies).  
See also Callahan v. Superior Court, 410 Mass. 1001, 1001 (1991) 
("mandamus will not issue to direct a judicial officer to make a 
particular decision or to review, or reverse, a decision made by 
a judicial officer on an issue properly before him or her"). 
 
 
The plaintiff has now filed a memorandum and appendix 
pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  
The rule only applies where a single justice has denied relief 
from an interlocutory ruling in the trial court.  It does not 
apply to this appeal because, at the time the plaintiff filed 
her complaint, judgment had already entered in the summary 
process proceeding.  Regardless, it is clear on the record 
before us that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief because 
she could have obtained review of the summary process judgment 
(and any other claims of error concerning those proceedings) 
through the ordinary appellate process.  See Yahya v. Rocktop 
Partners I, LP, 479 Mass. 1035, 1036 (2018); Wallace v. PNC 
Bank, N.A., 478 Mass. 1020, 1020 (2018).  See also Salomon S.A. 
v. LaFond, 463 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2012) (jurisdictional claims 
may be reviewed on appeal).  As the single justice recognized, 
relief in the nature of mandamus is not available where the 
ordinary appellate process would suffice.  See Myrick v. 
Superior Court Dep't, 479 Mass. 1012, 1012 (2018). 
 
 
Moreover, according to the county court's docket, the 
plaintiff failed timely to claim this appeal from the judgment 
entered in the county court.  See Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a), as 
amended, 464 Mass. 1601 (2013).  The single justice's judgment 
entered on July 24, 2018, and he denied the plaintiff's motion 
to amend the judgment on August 6, 2018.  The plaintiff's notice 
of appeal was filed more than thirty days later, on September 
24, 2018.  This is another reason not to disturb the judgment.  
See Kellerman v. Kellerman, 390 Mass. 1007, 1008 (1984) ("fact 
[that appellant] was appearing pro se does not excuse the 
failure to file the claim of appeal within the applicable time 
period").  "A pro se litigant is bound by the same rules of 
procedure as litigants with counsel."  International Fid. Ins. 
Co. v. Wilson, 387 Mass. 841, 847 (1983). 
 
                                                          
 
 
3 We need not address other possible bases for the denial of 
relief.  It suffices to say that it is highly unlikely that 
mandamus relief would have been appropriate in any event. 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Akkima Dannielle Briscoe, pro se. 
 
Jessica Ragosta Early & Jean-Phillip Brignol for the 
defendant.