| Mass. | Jul 9, 1997
In this case, Matthews has not properly demonstrated that he availed himself of other available means of achieving the desired relief. Noticeably absent from his submission to the single justice were copies of the correspondence he claims to have sent to the clerk of the Superior Court, a judge of that court, and the court’s Chief Justice, regarding the court’s failure to act on his motions. See Zatsky v. Zatsky, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 7" court="Mass. App. Ct." date_filed="1994-01-31" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/zatsky-v-zatsky-1996330?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1996330">36 Mass. App. Ct. 7, 12 (1994) (suggesting that such a course be taken by litigants aggrieved by delay). He did not file an affidavit verifying that he had sent such correspondence. Nor did he submit copies of any correspondence he may have received from the Superior Court clerk, judge, or Chief Justice. The single justice was not required to believe Matthews’s bare, unverified allegation in hes memorandum supporting his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition that he had unsuccessfully pursued these avenues in the trial court. It was Matthews’s duty to substantiate his allegation. See Barnoski v. Commonwealth, 413 Mass. 1007" court="Mass." date_filed="1992-12-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/dalessio-v-dalessio-6450373?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6450373">413 Mass. 1007 (1992) (noting petitioner’s duty to develop a factual record before the single justice adequate to support the allegations of G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition). See also Pandey v. Ware Div. Of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 412 Mass. 1002" court="Mass." date_filed="1992-02-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/pandey-v-ware-division-of-the-district-court-department-6450337?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6450337">412 Mass. 1002, 1003 (1992); Commonwealth v. Montanez, 388 Mass. 603" court="Mass." date_filed="1983-04-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/commonwealth-v-montanez-2190437?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2190437">388 Mass. 603, 604-605 (1983); Costarelli v. Municipal Court of the City of Boston, 367 Mass. 35" court="Mass." date_filed="1975-02-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/costarelli-v-municipal-court-of-the-city-of-boston-2155166?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2155166">367 Mass. 35, 38 n.2 (1975).
We are mindful, nevertheless, that Matthews’s multiple motions in the Superior Court have gone without action by the court for periods now ranging from more than six months to more than one year, and that the deposition of D’Arcy ordered on June 29, 1995, has not yet taken place. We shall remand this case to the county court, where Matthews will have thirty days from the date of the rescript in which to file an amended petition containing updated and
So ordered.
We note a further deficiency in Matthews’s petition. He did not demonstrate, or even allege, that the motions he filed in the Superior Court were correctly served on D’Arcy. Copies of his motions were not made part of the record before the single justice. Nor was a copy of D’Arcy’s opposition included. Without proof of proper service and a showing that the motions were otherwise ripe for disposition, the single justice was in no position to order the Superior Court to dispose of these motions.