37 N.E.3d 1095
Mass.2015Background
- In August 2010 Skandha and co‑plaintiffs sued CPCS and attorneys alleging due‑process failures in screening new‑trial motions; the Superior Court dismissed the complaint in May 2013.
- Skandha filed a timely notice of appeal from that dismissal; the appeal was dismissed in January 2014 for failure to perfect (defendant argued Skandha did not designate transcript portions).
- Skandha timely filed a second notice of appeal from the dismissal of his appeal and sought orders compelling the Superior Court clerk to assemble the record for the appeal.
- Two motions directed to the clerk to provide pleadings/assemble the record were stamped “rejected” on June 26, 2014 and not docketed.
- Skandha petitioned a single justice of the SJC for mandamus and relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, asking the clerk be ordered to assemble the record; the single justice denied relief without a hearing.
- The SJC affirmed, concluding Skandha had other available remedies he did not pursue and that the clerk should have accepted the motions for submission to a judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extraordinary relief (mandamus / G. L. c. 211 § 3) was warranted to compel the clerk to assemble the record | Skandha argued clerk improperly rejected motions and he was entitled to the record to pursue his appeal | Implied: clerk's rejection was permissible or at least not subject to immediate extraordinary relief | Denied — SJC held extraordinary relief was not warranted because Skandha failed to pursue available alternatives before seeking SJC intervention |
| Whether the clerk properly refused to accept and docket motions to assemble the record | Skandha argued clerk should accept and forward motions to a judge | Clerk acted within discretion to reject (implicit defense) | SJC said clerk should not have refused: clerks are ministerial and must accept filings and submit them to a judge |
| Whether Skandha had available alternative remedies before seeking SJC superintendency | Skandha contended immediate SJC action was appropriate | Opposing view: parties should use clerk‑to‑clerk contact, chief judge intervention, Appeals Court single‑justice motions, or mandamus as last resort | SJC held he failed to pursue recognized alternatives (per Zatsky) and that those alternatives should precede SJC intervention |
| Effect of local administrative filing review order on clerk’s actions | Skandha noted numerous prior filings and the Superior Court’s October 2011 administrative review order; implied that order shouldn’t block proper docketing | Clerk may have relied on that order to reject filings (if so, it should be noted) | SJC said if the clerk relied on the administrative order it should have been indicated on the docket; rejection on that basis would be questionable |
Key Cases Cited
- Zatsky v. Zatsky, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 7 (appeals remedy for delay in assembly of record; clerk‑to‑clerk, chief judge, single‑justice, mandamus sequence)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1045 (denial of extraordinary relief where alternative remedies available)
- Gaumond v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 1015 (same)
- Keane v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1002 (same)
- Matthews v. D'Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021 (upholding denial of extraordinary relief absent pursuit of alternatives)
- Elles v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Quincy, 450 Mass. 671 (appellant’s right to seek assembly of the record to pursue an appeal)
- Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001 (clerks are ministerial officers who must receive and file papers)