Posts tagged "Myrick"

Myrick v. Superior Court Department (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-066-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12190   KYL V. MYRICK  vs.  SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT.[1]     April 18, 2018.     Mandamus.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus.  Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.     Kyl V. Myrick appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief in the nature of mandamus.  Myrick’s petition sought the reversal of a Superior Court judgment dismissing a civil complaint that he had filed in that court.  That complaint concerned the denial of his applications for criminal complaints in the Boston Municipal Court Department.  In his petition to the single justice, Myrick also challenged the Superior Court judge’s declining to recuse himself from the matter.  The single justice correctly denied both the petition and Myrick’s subsequent request for reconsideration.   “It would be hard to find any principle more fully established in our practice than the principle that neither mandamus nor certiorari is to be used as a substitute for ordinary appellate procedure or used at any time when there is another adequate remedy.”  Rines v. Justices of the Superior Court, 330 Mass. 368, 371 (1953).  See, e.g., Ardon v. Committee for Pub. Counsel Servs., 464 Mass. 1001 (2012).  There was, as the single justice recognized, a plainly adequate alternative remedy for Myrick to pursue after his complaint in the Superior Court was dismissed, namely, an appeal to the Appeals Court from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the complaint.  See Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a), as amended, 464 Mass. 1601 (2013).  As for Myrick’s claim that the Superior Court judge should have recused himself, that claim also could have been raised on appeal to the Appeals Court.  See Bloise v. Bloise, 437 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2002), citing Doten v. Plymouth Div. of the Probate & Family Court Dep’t, 395 Mass. 1001, 1001 (1985).  See also Ewing v. Commonwealth, 451 Mass. 1005, 1006 (2008).   Judgment affirmed.     Kyl V. Myrick, pro se. Eric A. Haskell, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.        [1] The real party in interest, the defendant named in the complaint filed in the Superior Court Department, was not made a party to these proceedings.   Full-text Opinions

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 18, 2018 at 4:16 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Myrick v. Harvard University (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-037-16)

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-11976   KYL V. MYRICK  vs.  HARVARD UNIVERSITY. March 15, 2016. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Appeals Court.  Practice, Civil, Stay of proceedings.      Kyl V. Myrick appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court that denied relief from a ruling of a single justice of the Appeals Court in a case that is currently pending in the Appeals Court.  We affirm.   The case originated in the Superior Court when Myrick filed a complaint against Harvard University alleging employment discrimination.  A judge in the Superior Court dismissed the complaint on Harvard’s motion and denied Myrick’s subsequent attempts to reinstate the case.  Myrick appealed to the Appeals Court and, while his appeal was pending, moved to stay the appeal so that he could file a new complaint and seek additional discovery in the underlying action in the Superior Court.  A single justice of the Appeals Court declined to stay the appeal.  Myrick then requested that a single justice of this court grant relief from the Appeals Court single justice’s order by either staying the appeal in the Appeals Court or remanding the entire matter to the Superior Court.   On the day this appeal was entered in the full court, Myrick filed a two-page memorandum and an appendix of material from the record in the county court.  It appears that he filed these things in an attempt to comply with S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  That rule does not apply here, however.  It applies to cases in which a single justice of this court “denies relief from an interlocutory ruling in the trial court.”  Id.  Here the single justice denied relief from an order of a single justice of the Appeals Court in an appeal that is pending there.   That said, we have reviewed Myrick’s submission and the entire record that was before the single justice in the county court, and it is apparent that the single justice neither erred nor abused her discretion by denying Myrick’s request for relief.  Once the Appeals Court single justice denied Myrick’s request for a stay, Myrick could have sought review of that ruling from a panel of the Appeals Court, see Kordis v. Appeals Court, 434 Mass. 662 (2001), but did not do so.  It was unnecessary, and it would have been especially inappropriate […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 15, 2016 at 7:44 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,