Title: Ardaneh v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12852
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: October 23, 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12852 
 
HAMID REZA ARDANEH  vs.  COMMONWEALTH & others.1 
 
 
October 23, 2020. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Hamid Reza Ardaneh, appeals from a judgment 
of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant 
to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We affirm. 
 
 
In August 2016, Ardaneh was indicted on several counts of 
rape, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22 (b), and one count of 
strangulation or suffocation, in violation of G. L. c. 265, 
§ 15D (b).  In August 2017, while proceedings in the trial court 
were ongoing, he was committed for observation to Bridgewater 
State Hospital for a determination whether he is competent to 
stand trial pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 15 (a).  He was 
subsequently found incompetent to stand trial and was committed 
to the hospital pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 16.  He has since 
been recommitted, and remains there still.  In November 2019, he 
filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, in which he claimed, very 
generally and among other things, that his constitutional rights 
have been violated, including his right to effective assistance 
of counsel; that he does not suffer from any mental illness and 
has been "falsely" deemed incompetent to stand trial; that he 
has exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence; and that the 
Commonwealth is protecting the "alleged victim and her family" 
                                                 
 
1 Certain individuals associated with Bridgewater State 
Hospital; certain individuals associated with the trial court; 
and others. 
2 
 
 
because they are Jewish (and Ardaneh is not).2  The single 
justice denied the petition without a hearing. 
 
 
In his appeal to the full court, Ardaneh continues to raise 
a myriad of claims, not all of which are easy to discern.  He 
continues to press his ineffective assistance of counsel claim; 
he argues his innocence and maintains that he does not suffer 
from mental illness; and he makes claims about the "Jewish 
mafia" and disparaging and discriminatory statements about Jews.  
Although he states that he is seeking injunctive relief, what he 
ultimately appears to be seeking is a dismissal of the 
indictments against him and release from confinement.3  He does 
so, however, without setting forth any sound legal argument. 
 
 
First, the single justice properly denied relief because 
Ardaneh had an adequate alternative remedy.  Relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where "there are other routes by 
which the petitioning party may adequately seek relief."  Sabree 
v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000).  To the extent 
that Ardaneh sought dismissal of the indictments, that was a 
matter to raise in the trial court in the first instance.4  
Similarly, a remedy related to his continuing commitment 
pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 16, lies, in the first instance, in 
the trial court.  See id.; G. L. c. 123, § 17. 
 
 
Second, we note that Ardaneh was not seeking relief in the 
county court from any specific rulings of the trial court, but 
rather from what he perceived to be general injustices done to 
or imposed on him.  His claims did not present a situation 
warranting extraordinary superintendence relief directly from 
this court.  The single justice therefore did not err or abuse 
his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
                                                 
 
2 Ardaneh was represented by counsel in the criminal case in 
the trial court.  He filed his petition in the county court pro 
se. 
 
3 In addition to raising the issue of dismissal of the 
indictments in his brief, the petitioner has also separately 
filed, in this court, a motion to dismiss the indictments. 
 
 
4 Indeed, while the petitioner's appeal has been pending in 
this court, he filed a motion to dismiss in the trial court, 
which was denied. 
3 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Hamid Reza Ardaneh, pro se. 
 
Randall E. Ravitz, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
respondents.