Title: Hudson v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Concord
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12285
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: November 13, 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12285 
 
 
MAC S. HUDSON  vs.  SUPERINTENDENT, MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL 
INSTITUTION, CONCORD, & another.1 
 
 
November 13, 2018. 
 
 
 
Moot Question.  Practice, Civil, Moot case. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Mac S. Hudson, appeals from the judgment of 
a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We dismiss the appeal as moot. 
 
 
The petitioner is a prisoner at the Massachusetts 
Correctional Institution, Concord.  He filed a complaint in the 
Superior Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, seeking review of 
a certain inmate disciplinary report against him.  A Superior 
Court judge denied the petitioner's motion to amend the 
complaint, and a single justice of the Appeals Court denied his 
petition seeking interlocutory review of that ruling under G. L. 
c. 231, § 118, first par.2  The petitioner thereafter filed a 
petition in the county court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
                     
 
1 Lauren Vinisky. 
 
 
2 According to the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, the proposed 
amendments generally sought to correct certain "deficiencies" in 
the petitioner's complaint, to raise additional claims related 
to the disciplinary hearing, and to add other claims concerning 
alleged retaliation and other disciplinary proceedings.  The 
petitioner argued that relief was warranted under c. 211, § 3, 
because, if those matters were not joined in the Superior Court 
proceeding, applicable limitations periods or principles of 
claim preclusion might impede his ability to assert them. 
2 
 
 
seeking relief from the Superior Court's order.  A single 
justice of this court denied the petition on the ground that the 
"petitioner has an adequate, alternate remedy and extraordinary 
circumstances are not present."  See Mirrione v. Jacobs, 446 
Mass. 1001, 1001 (2006), quoting Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 
423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996) ("Review under G. L. c. 211, 
§ 3, does not lie where review under [G. L.] c. 231, § 118, 
would suffice").  See also Stolpinski v. McGillicuddy, 425 Mass. 
1002, 1002 (1997) (denial of motion to amend complaint may be 
addressed on direct appeal).  The petitioner appeals.3 
 
 
After the single justice denied relief, the underlying 
inmate disciplinary report was dismissed, the guilty finding was 
expunged from the petitioner's administrative record, and the 
amount he was ordered to pay in restitution was returned to his 
institutional account.  The respondents moved in the Superior 
Court to dismiss the certiorari complaint as moot, and the 
petitioner consented to the dismissal of the disciplinary report 
and expungement of his record.  The judge dismissed the 
complaint on the ground of mootness, and final judgment to that 
effect has entered. 
 
 
The case is now before us on the respondents' motion to 
dismiss the petitioner's appeal from the judgment of the single 
justice.  Where the underlying disciplinary report has been 
dismissed, and the complaint seeking certiorari review is no 
longer pending, the appeal is moot in the sense that the relief 
the petitioner sought from the single justice, i.e., leave to 
amend his complaint, can no longer be granted.  See Martin v. 
Commonwealth, 452 Mass. 1028, 1029 (2008).  It is also moot with 
respect to the original certiorari complaint that was filed; the 
dismissal of the disciplinary report, "in effect, rendered moot 
any defects in the underlying proceedings."4  Burns v. 
Commonwealth, 430 Mass. 444, 447 (1999). 
                     
 
3 The petitioner's appeal is subject to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which applies where, as here, a 
single justice denies relief from an interlocutory ruling of the 
trial court. 
 
 
4 The petitioner opposes dismissal of this appeal.  He 
continues to assert that the Superior Court judge erred in 
denying his motion to amend the complaint to add additional 
claims.  That issue can be or could have been raised as part of 
a direct appeal from the judgment dismissing the complaint.  
Particularly in a circumstance where judgment already has 
entered, there is no basis on which to conclude that the 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Mac S. Hudson, pro se. 
 
Richard E. Gordon for the respondents. 
                     
ordinary appellate process is inadequate to obtain review of the 
petitioner's claim.