Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Imre Kifor, Petitioner v. Massachusetts, et al.

APPENDIX A

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court SJC-13427

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8/8/2023 Decision of the Full Supreme Judicial Court

1

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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) 5571030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-13427

IMRE KIFOR

vs.

COMMONWEALTH & others.1

August 8, 2023.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

Imre Kifor filed a petition in the county court seeking

relief in the nature of certiorari, pursuant to G. L. c. 249,

§4. A single justice of this court treated the filing as a

petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, and denied it without a

hearing. We agree that extraordinary relief is not warranted

and affirm.

Whether considered under G. L. c. 249, § 4, or G. L.

c. 211, § 3, Kifor's petition generally sought correction of

alleged errors in judicial proceedings in the Middlesex Division

of the Probate and Family Court, including rulings he

characterizes as "gatekeeper" orders and describes as requiring

him to obtain permission from that court before filing and

serving additional pleadings in those proceedings. Among

Kifor's claims is the contention that he was precluded from

seeking review of those orders because one or more of them was

not timely entered on the Probate and Family Court's docket.

After the single justice denied relief and the appeal was

entered in this court, Kifor filed a memorandum and appendix

pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).

That rule applies when a single justice of this court "denies

relief from an interlocutory ruling in the trial court."

Id.

1 Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of Revenue,

Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department,

Barbara A. Duchesne, and Cynthia S. Oulton.

None of the'

appellees has appeared in this appeal.

APPENDIX A - 000001

2

Irrespective of whether the rule applies to all of Kifor's

myriad claims, we have reviewed his submissions and the record

before the single justice and conclude that extraordinary relief

properly was denied.

"Regardless of whether relief is requested in the nature of

certiorari or mandamus, or by means of the court's extraordinary

power of general superintendence, relief is available only where

the petitioner demonstrates the absence of an adequate and

effective alternative remedy." Wallace v. PNC Bank, N.A., 478

Mass. 1020, 1020 (2018), citing Picciotto v. Appeals Court (No.

2), 457 Mass. 1002, 1002, cert, denied, 562 U.S. 1044 (2010)

(certiorari review unavailable where other paths for review

available); Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006)

(relief in nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and granted in

court's discretion only where other relief unavailable); Greco

v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019 (1996) (relief

properly denied under G. L. c. 211, § 3, "where there are

[other] adequate and effective routes . . . by which the

petitioning party may seek relief").

See also Kifor v.

Commonwealth, 491 Mass. 1002, 1002 (2022).

In this case, Kifor failed to carry his burden of

demonstrating that adequate alternative remedies were not

available to him.2 To the extent he challenges the entry of

interlocutory "gatekeeper" orders or any associated

interlocutory orders denying motions seeking leave to file

particular materials, he could seek reconsideration of those

orders or avail himself of the procedures described in G. L.

2 It is incumbent on a petitioner for extraordinary relief

to If I to create a record -- not merely to allege but to

demonstrate, i.e., to provide copies of the lower court docket

entries and any relevant pleadings, motions, orders ... or

other parts of the lower court record necessary to substantiate

[his] allegations' that [extraordinary] relief is warranted.

Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1001, cert, denied, 525

U.S. 1003 (1998)." Hunt v. Appeals Court, 441 Mass. 1011, 1011

(2004) (insufficiency of record provides basis to deny relief

pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3).

See Kifor v. Commonwealth (No.

1), 490 Mass. 1003, 1004 (2022) (petitioner for certiorari has

burden to demonstrate absence or inadequacy of other remedies);

Murray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 n.4 (2006)

(insufficiency of record provides basis to deny mandamus

relief). The record presented in this case is insufficient to

warrant extraordinary relief in the nature of certiorari,

providing an additional basis on which to deny the petition.

APPENDIX A - 000002

3

See Kifor v. Commonwealth (No. 1), 490 Mass.

c. 231, § 118.

See also Padmanabhan v. Cooke, 483 Mass.

1003, 1004 (2022) .

1024, 1025 (2019); Picciotto v. Chief Justice of the Superior

To the extent he challenges

Court, 446 Mass. 1015, 1016 (2006) .

the entry of any final order of the Probate and Family Court, he

may appeal from any such order.

See Bishay v. Land Court Dep't

of the Trial Court, 477 Mass. 1032, 1033 (2017). See also Kifor

(No. 1), supra ("appeals from various decisions and orders of

the Probate and Family Court" pending before Appeals Court). To

the extent Kifor contends that the docketing of any order was

delayed and that the appellate period lapsed in the interim, a

motion under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (1) or (6), 365 Mass. 828

(1974), may provide a remedy. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v.

Mondi, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 280, 285-286 (2020); Abbott v. John

Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 18 Mass. App. Ct. 508, 514-515

(1984) .

This is the fifth time that Kifor has sought some form of

extraordinary relief arising from protracted litigation between

him and the mothers of his children. He has been warned

repeatedly that "further baseless attempts to obtain

extraordinary relief could result in sanctions." Kifor v.

Commonwealth, 492 Mass. 1002 (2023). Most recently, we directed

that the

"clerk of this court for Suffolk County and the clerk for

the Commonwealth are instructed not to accept any new

petition or appeal from this petitioner that seeks

extraordinary relief, by way of G. L. c. 211, § 3, or

otherwise, unless it is accompanied by a motion for leave

to file, and shall not docket the petition or appeal unless

and until the full court grants the motion on making a

preliminary determination that the petitioner has no other

adequate remedy and that he has furnished the court with a

record that substantiates his claims. Cf. Watson [v.

Justice of the Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep't], 458

Mass . [1025, 1027 (2011)], and cases cited."

This appeal was pending when that decision issued,

Id. at 1003.

It is

and therefore is not subject to its requirements,

nonetheless notable that the appeal has failed for the same

reasons that prompted this court to institute the abovedescribed limitations on Kifor's future filings. Nothing in

Kifor's petition required extraordinary relief, and the single

justice was warranted in denying it.

Judgment affirmed.

APPENDIX A - 000003

4

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by

a memorandum of law.

Imre Kifor, pro se.

APPENDIX A - 000004

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.