Court Opinion

ID: 9394763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 14:07:02.003309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:02.606994
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-13392

            IMRE KIFOR   vs.   COMMONWEALTH & others.1

                          May 16, 2023.

   Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

     Imre Kifor 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 judgment.

     Kifor has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). That rule
applies "[w]hen a single justice denies relief from a challenged
interlocutory ruling in the trial court." S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (1).
As far as we are able to discern, Kifor is not challenging any
particular interlocutory ruling of the trial court. Regardless
of whether rule 2:21 technically applies, however, it is clear
on the record before us that the single justice neither erred
nor abused his discretion by denying relief.

     Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary, and no
party should expect that we will exercise our superintendent
power lightly. Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 24-25
(2019). "The single justice is not required to become involved
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." Id. It was incumbent on Kifor, as the party
seeking to invoke G. L. c. 211, § 3, "not merely to allege but

     1 Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of Revenue, and
Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department.
                                                                   2

to demonstrate . . . both a substantial claim of violation of a
substantive right and that the violation could not have been
remedied in the normal course of a trial or by other available
means." Care & Protection of a Minor, 478 Mass. 1015, 1015
(2017), quoting Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert.
denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998). In his petition, Kifor alleged
that a number of State actors, namely, the Commonwealth, the
Governor, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Revenue, and
the Probate and Family Court, have been engaged in "deliberately
child-predatory and subversionary public nuisance activities" in
furtherance of a conspiracy against him. However, he did not
allege, much less substantiate, any particular such activities
by any of these parties. Rather, he appeared to complain that
the Probate and Family Court failed to act on certain motions
for costs that he filed.2 He did not, however, demonstrate that
he had taken all available steps to obtain rulings on his
motions. See, e.g., Matthews v. D'Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021, 1022
(1997). In these circumstances, the single justice was not
obligated to exercise the court's superintendent power to become
involved in the matter.

     This is the fourth case before the full court in which
Kifor has sought some form of extraordinary relief, all seeking
to have this court intervene in the litigation between him and
the mothers of his children. See Kifor v. Commonwealth, 491
Mass. 1002 (2022); Kifor v. Commonwealth (No. 2), 490 Mass. 1019
(2022); Kifor v. Commonwealth (No. 1), 490 Mass. 1003 (2022).
We are also aware of two additional such petitions that were
denied by a single justice without appeals, and yet another that
was denied by a single justice with an appeal now pending in
this court. We have warned Kifor that further baseless attempts
to obtain extraordinary relief could result in the imposition of
sanctions. Kifor, 491 Mass. at 1002. As we said in Watson v.
Justice of the Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep't, 458 Mass.
1025, 1027 (2011), "[t]he repetitive filing of groundless
petitions for extraordinary relief and appeals like these
unnecessarily consumes the court's limited resources."
Accordingly, today we are taking measures intended to prevent
Kifor from further abusing the system.

    2  He did so without naming his children's mothers as
respondents as required by S.J.C. Rule 2:22, 422 Mass. 1302
(1996) ("Any petition seeking to invoke the general
superintendency power of the court pursuant to G. L. c. 211,
§ 3, shall name as respondents and make service upon all parties
to the proceeding before the lower court . . ."). This presents
a further reason not to disturb the single justice's decision.
                                                                   3

     The judgment of the single justice is affirmed. The clerk
of this court for Suffolk County and the clerk for the
Commonwealth are instructed not to accept any new petition or
appeal from this petitioner that seeks extraordinary relief, by
way of G. L. c. 211, § 3, or otherwise, unless it is accompanied
by a motion for leave to file, and shall not docket the petition
or appeal unless and until the full court grants the motion on
making a preliminary determination that the petitioner has no
other adequate remedy and that he has furnished the court with a
record that substantiates his claims. Cf. Watson, 458 Mass. at
1027, and cases cited.

                                   So ordered.

     The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by
a memorandum of law.
     Imre Kifor, pro se.