493 Mass. 1002
Mass.2023Background
- Petitioner (pro se) filed a District Court application seeking criminal complaints charging an individual with witness intimidation and unlawful wiretapping.
- A District Court assistant clerk‑magistrate found no probable cause; the petitioner sought redetermination and a judge denied it.
- Petitioner later filed a second application in Boston Municipal Court (BMC) alleging further misconduct; the BMC clerk‑magistrate found no probable cause and petitioner did not seek redetermination in BMC.
- Petitioner filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition asking a single justice to order issuance of the criminal complaints; he was allowed to supplement the petition to include the BMC matter.
- The single justice denied relief without reaching the merits; petitioner appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.
- The SJC affirmed: the single justice did not abuse discretion, and a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest to compel prosecution or extraordinary intervention after the court has acted on an application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the single justice abused discretion by declining to exercise superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3 | Single justice should have used superintendence to review and order issuance of complaints | Decision to issue complaints is routine; single justice may decline extraordinary intervention | No abuse; single justice properly declined to exercise superintendence |
| Whether petitioner has standing to obtain relief compelling issuance of criminal complaints | Petitioner asserted a right to have complaints issued after filing applications | Private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in prosecution; rights satisfied once application is filed and court acts | Petitioner lacks standing to obtain extraordinary relief |
| Whether petitioner had adequate alternative remedies (redetermination) | Petitioner argued denial warranted court intervention | Petitioner used redetermination in District Court but did not seek redetermination in BMC; alternatives exist | Availability/absence of alternative remedies supports denial; single justice not required to intervene |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 492 Mass. 1013 (2023) (describing the two‑step superintendence inquiry under G. L. c. 211, § 3)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 487 Mass. 1007 (2021) (discussing discretion to invoke superintendence and when to reach merits)
- Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22 (2019) (standards for single justice review under c. 211, § 3)
- Commonwealth v. Dilworth, 485 Mass. 1001 (2020) (noting single justice need not reach merits if alternative remedies exist)
- Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint, 477 Mass. 1010 (2017) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in prosecution)
- Ellis, petitioner, 460 Mass. 1020 (2011) (reaffirming private‑party limitation on compelling prosecution)
- Bradford v. Knights, 427 Mass. 748 (1998) (declining review of refusals to issue complaints)
- Victory Distribs., Inc. v. Ayer Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 435 Mass. 136 (2001) (private party's rights are satisfied when court acts on an application)