Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth
477 Mass. 1001
Mass.2017Background
- Petitioner Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, charged with criminal harassment in Cambridge District Court, filed two G. L. c. 211, § 3 petitions in the county court seeking (1) removal of the presiding judge and the assistant district attorney and (2) reversal of denials of his discovery motions.
- A single justice denied both petitions without a hearing; Afrasiabi appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.
- These petitions were Afrasiabi's fourth and fifth section 3 petitions challenging interlocutory trial-court matters; prior petitions were denied and appeals failed to comply with S.J.C. Rule 2:21.
- S.J.C. Rule 2:21 requires a short memorandum explaining why interlocutory review is necessary because adequate review cannot await a final judgment; Afrasiabi submitted a document styled "memorandum" that functioned as a brief and did not address the adequate-alternative-remedy issue.
- The single justice's denials were affirmed: the court held Afrasiabi failed to show that interlocutory review was necessary and that the contested matters (discovery rulings and any recusal denial) could be adequately raised on direct appeal from a final judgment.
- The court warned Afrasiabi that further deficient G. L. c. 211, § 3 filings could prompt sanctions, including restrictions on future filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interlocutory relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 was warranted despite available appellate remedies | Afrasiabi argued extraordinary relief was needed now (seeking removal and discovery relief) | Commonwealth argued adequate remedy exists by appeal from final judgment; interlocutory review not justified | Denied — petitioner failed to show lack of adequate alternative remedy; relief could await final appeal |
| Whether Afrasiabi complied with S.J.C. Rule 2:21 requirements for interlocutory appeals | Afrasiabi filed a document labeled "memorandum" but treated it as a brief and did not explain why interlocutory review was necessary | Commonwealth (and court) pointed to noncompliance with Rule 2:21 as fatal to the appeal | Denied — failure to comply with Rule 2:21 justified affirming the single justice's judgment |
| Whether denials of discovery motions require immediate review | Afrasiabi sought reversal of discovery denials now | Commonwealth argued discovery rulings can be reviewed after final judgment on appeal | Denied — discovery rulings can be adequately reviewed on direct appeal from final judgment |
| Whether judge and prosecutor should be removed/recused now | Afrasiabi sought an order removing the judge and prosecutor from the case | Commonwealth argued any recusal/recusation denial can be appealed after final judgment and no showing made for immediate extraordinary relief | Denied — unclear petitioner even sought recusal in trial court; in any event denial could be reviewed on appeal from final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth, 473 Mass. 1016 (2015) (prior section 3 petition by same petitioner denied)
- Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth, 466 Mass. 1007 (2013) (prior interlocutory petition by same petitioner)
- Afrasiabi v. Rooney, 432 Mass. 1006 (2000) (earlier related petition)
- Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003 (2000) (declining to disturb single-justice denial where interlocutory remedy not shown)
- Madison v. Commonwealth, 466 Mass. 1033 (2013) (discovery rulings can be addressed on appeal from final judgment)
- Bloise v. Bloise, 437 Mass. 1010 (2002) (recusal/related denials reviewable on appeal)
- Doten v. Plymouth Div. of the Probate & Family Court Dep't, 395 Mass. 1001 (1985) (recusal issues reviewable on appeal)
- Watson v. Walker, 455 Mass. 1004 (2009) (courts may restrict future filings by a litigant who repeatedly files deficient petitions)