Court Opinion

ID: 9890999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 12:07:24.420266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:40.444058
License: Public Domain

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-13373

   IN THE MATTER OF TWO APPLICATIONS FOR A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.

                        October 11, 2023.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
     Practice, Criminal, Complaint, Standing.

     The petitioner appeals from a judgment of the county court
denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L.
c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

     The petitioner filed in the District Court an application
for a criminal complaint charging a certain individual with
witness intimidation, G. L. c. 268, § 13B, and unlawful
wiretapping, G. L. c. 272, § 99 C 1. An assistant clerk-
magistrate in the District Court found no probable cause and did
not issue the requested complaint. The petitioner filed a
motion for redetermination. A judge in the District Court
denied that motion. Thereafter, alleging that the individual
had committed further unlawful acts, the petitioner filed
another application for a criminal complaint, this time in the
Boston Municipal Court (BMC), charging the individual with
witness intimidation. The clerk-magistrate of the BMC found no
probable cause and did not issue the requested complaint. The
petitioner has not sought redetermination in the BMC. The
petitioner's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, as supplemented,1
sought relief pertaining to both the District Court and BMC
proceedings and particularly sought the issuance of criminal
complaints. The single justice denied relief without addressing
the merits.

     1 The petitioner initially filed a petition concerning only
the District Court proceedings. The single justice permitted
him to supplement his petition to include the BMC proceedings.
                                                                  2

     The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion
by denying relief. "As we have explained, '[a] single justice
considering a petition filed pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3,
performs a two-step inquiry. . . . The first step requires the
single justice to decide "whether to employ the court's power of
general superintendence to become involved in the matter," . . .
or, stated differently, to "decide, in his or her discretion,
whether to review 'the substantive merits of the . . .
petition.'"'" Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 492 Mass. 1013, 1014
(2023), quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 487 Mass. 1007, 1008
(2021). See Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 24 (2019).
"The single justice need not take the second step (which is to
resolve the petition on its substantive merits) 'if the
petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy or if the single
justice determines, in his or her discretion, that the subject
of the petition is not sufficiently important and extraordinary
as to require general superintendence intervention.'" Brown,
supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Dilworth, 485 Mass. 1001, 1002
(2020). "Where, as here, the single justice denied relief
without reaching the substantive merits of the . . . petition,
'it is incumbent on the [petitioner] to show that on the record
before him, the single justice was required to exercise the
court's superintendence power: that is, that the [petitioner]
had no adequate alternative remedy and that the single justice
abused his discretion by failing to reach the merits of [his]
petition.'" Monteiro, supra, quoting Brown, supra. The
petitioner's complaint is that the clerks-magistrate of the
District Court and the BMC considered his applications, found
they were not supported by probable cause, and declined to issue
the requested criminal complaints. The decision to issue or not
to issue a criminal complaint is a routine matter in those
courts. The single justice was not obligated to exercise this
court's extraordinary superintendence power in these
circumstances.

     Even considering the merits, the petitioner fares no
better. "It is well established that 'a private citizen lacks a
judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or
nonprosecution of another.'" Matter of an Application for a
Criminal Complaint, 477 Mass. 1010, 1011 (2017), quoting Ellis,
petitioner, 460 Mass. 1020, 1020-1021 (2011). "For this reason,
'we have consistently declined to review, under the authority
given to us by G. L. c. 211, § 3, refusals to issue
complaints.'" Matter of an Application for a Criminal
Complaint, supra, quoting Bradford v. Knights, 427 Mass. 748,
752 (1998). In our system, "[a] private party's rights with
                                                                   3

respect to the criminal complaint process are limited to the
filing of an application and court action on that application.
Once a private party alerts the court of the alleged criminal
activity through the filing of an application and the court
responds to that application, the private party's rights have
been satisfied." Victory Distribs., Inc. v. Ayer Div. of the
Dist. Court Dep't, 435 Mass. 136, 141 (2001). The petitioner
filed his applications, and the District Court and the BMC acted
on them. He has no standing to obtain extraordinary relief in
this matter.2 Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint,
supra.

                                   Judgment affirmed.

     The case was submitted on briefs.
     The petitioner, pro se.

     2 We express no view as to whether probable cause exists to
charge the individual with witness intimidation or any other
offense.