In the Matter of Two Applications for a Criminal Complaint

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-13373

IN THE MATTER OF TWO APPLICATIONS FOR A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.

October 11, 2023.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

Practice, Criminal, Complaint, Standing.

The petitioner 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 petitioner filed in the District Court an application

for a criminal complaint charging a certain individual with

witness intimidation, G. L. c. 268, § 13B, and unlawful

wiretapping, G. L. c. 272, § 99 C 1. An assistant clerk-

magistrate in the District Court found no probable cause and did

not issue the requested complaint. The petitioner filed a

motion for redetermination. A judge in the District Court

denied that motion. Thereafter, alleging that the individual

had committed further unlawful acts, the petitioner filed

another application for a criminal complaint, this time in the

Boston Municipal Court (BMC), charging the individual with

witness intimidation. The clerk-magistrate of the BMC found no

probable cause and did not issue the requested complaint. The

petitioner has not sought redetermination in the BMC. The

petitioner's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, as supplemented,1

sought relief pertaining to both the District Court and BMC

proceedings and particularly sought the issuance of criminal

complaints. The single justice denied relief without addressing

the merits.

1 The petitioner initially filed a petition concerning only

the District Court proceedings. The single justice permitted

him to supplement his petition to include the BMC proceedings.

2

The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion

by denying relief. "As we have explained, '[a] single justice

considering a petition filed pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3,

performs a two-step inquiry. . . . The first step requires the

single justice to decide "whether to employ the court's power of

general superintendence to become involved in the matter," . . .

or, stated differently, to "decide, in his or her discretion,

whether to review 'the substantive merits of the . . .

petition.'"'" Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 492 Mass. 1013, 1014

(2023), quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 487 Mass. 1007, 1008

(2021). See Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 24 (2019).

"The single justice need not take the second step (which is to

resolve the petition on its substantive merits) '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.'" Brown,

supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Dilworth, 485 Mass. 1001, 1002

(2020). "Where, as here, the single justice denied relief

without reaching the substantive merits of the . . . petition,

'it is incumbent on the [petitioner] to show that on the record

before him, the single justice was required to exercise the

court's superintendence power: that is, that the [petitioner]

had no adequate alternative remedy and that the single justice

abused his discretion by failing to reach the merits of [his]

petition.'" Monteiro, supra, quoting Brown, supra. The

petitioner's complaint is that the clerks-magistrate of the

District Court and the BMC considered his applications, found

they were not supported by probable cause, and declined to issue

the requested criminal complaints. The decision to issue or not

to issue a criminal complaint is a routine matter in those

courts. The single justice was not obligated to exercise this

court's extraordinary superintendence power in these

circumstances.

Even considering the merits, the petitioner fares no

better. "It is well established that 'a private citizen lacks a

judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or

nonprosecution of another.'" Matter of an Application for a

Criminal Complaint, 477 Mass. 1010, 1011 (2017), quoting Ellis,

petitioner, 460 Mass. 1020, 1020-1021 (2011). "For this reason,

'we have consistently declined to review, under the authority

given to us by G. L. c. 211, § 3, refusals to issue

complaints.'" Matter of an Application for a Criminal

Complaint, supra, quoting Bradford v. Knights, 427 Mass. 748,

752 (1998). In our system, "[a] private party's rights with

3

respect to the criminal complaint process are limited to the

filing of an application and court action on that application.

Once a private party alerts the court of the alleged criminal

activity through the filing of an application and the court

responds to that application, the private party's rights have

been satisfied." Victory Distribs., Inc. v. Ayer Div. of the

Dist. Court Dep't, 435 Mass. 136, 141 (2001). The petitioner

filed his applications, and the District Court and the BMC acted

on them. He has no standing to obtain extraordinary relief in

this matter.2 Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint,

supra.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on briefs.

The petitioner, pro se.

2 We express no view as to whether probable cause exists to

charge the individual with witness intimidation or any other

offense.