CourtSupreme Judicial Court
DocketSJC 13894, 13902 & 13905
ReleasedOctober 22, 2026
Full opinionRead the full text of the decision
Question
Three questions. First, did the single justice err in denying a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, that sought to vacate two federal district court decisions and a Housing Court judgment? Second, did the single justice abuse discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel? Third, did the single justice err in denying the petitioner’s motion for alternative service?
Rule
Under Mass. R. A. P. 13, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1624 (2019), an appellant must properly serve each respondent and file certificates of service demonstrating compliance. Appeals may be dismissed for failure to comply with service requirements.
General Laws c. 211, § 3, grants the Supreme Judicial Court superintendence authority over inferior courts. The statute does not, however, confer authority to review or vacate decisions of federal courts. Federal court decisions may be challenged only through federal appellate procedures.
Appointment of counsel in civil cases is discretionary and generally not required. A single justice’s denial of such a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Holding
On the underlying petition. The single justice did not err in denying the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. Where Pidge sought relief from two federal court decisions, her remedy lies with the federal court, not the state court system. The single justice correctly recognized that the court lacked authority to vacate federal judgments.
On appointment of counsel. The single justice did not abuse discretion in denying Pidge’s motion for appointment of counsel. Pidge was not entitled to appointed counsel in this civil matter.
On alternative service. The single justice did not err in denying the motion for alternative service. Regardless, Pidge failed to file certificates of service demonstrating that she had properly served each respondent in compliance with Mass. R. A. P. 13.
Result
All three appeals dismissed. The court found that Pidge failed to comply with the service requirements of Mass. R. A. P. 13 and would not be entitled to relief even if she had properly served all parties.
Players
- Court: Supreme Judicial Court, full court review of single justice orders
- Opinion: Per curiam
- Appellant: Janet J. Pidge, pro se
- Respondents: The Governor and various local, State, and Federal officials and entities
- Below: Two single justices of the SJC (petition filed December 2025; denials in December 2025 and February 2026)
Janet Pidge filed a petition in December 2025 asking the Supreme Judicial Court to vacate two federal district court decisions, vacate a Housing Court judgment, and order monetary relief. A single justice denied the petition. Pidge appealed, but the full court returned the record because she had not complied with the rules governing appeals. After a different single justice allowed her motion to reinstate, Pidge filed two more motions: one for appointed counsel and one for alternative service. Both were denied. She appealed those denials as well. The court has now dismissed all three appeals for failure to serve the respondents and because she would lose anyway.
The Procedural Tangle
Pidge’s original petition invoked G. L. c. 211, § 3, the statute that gives the SJC superintendence authority over lower state courts. The first single justice denied it. Pidge filed a timely notice of appeal and the record was assembled, but the full court sent it back because Pidge had not followed Mass. R. A. P. 10 (a) or S.J.C. Rule 2:21. She then moved to reinstate the appeal and asked for a lawyer. The second single justice allowed reinstatement but denied counsel. The appeal was entered in the full court on February 20, 2026.
That same day, Pidge filed another motion for appointed counsel in the full court. It was referred to the second single justice, who denied it. Six days later, Pidge filed a memorandum under Rule 2:21 and a motion for alternative service. The motion for alternative service was also referred and denied. Pidge appealed both denials. Those appeals were entered on February 27 and March 3, 2026. She filed Rule 2:21 memoranda in all three appeals.
The Service Problem
Despite the denial of her motion for alternative service, Pidge never filed certificates of service showing that she had served the respondents under Mass. R. A. P. 13. That rule requires an appellant to properly serve each respondent. Without proof of service, the appeals cannot proceed.
The court noted that even if Pidge had complied with the service rule and properly served all parties, she would not be entitled to relief in any of the three appeals.
Why the Petition Failed
The core problem with Pidge’s original petition was jurisdictional. She asked the SJC to vacate two decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The single justice correctly recognized that the court had no authority to do so. General Laws c. 211, § 3, gives the SJC superintendence over inferior state courts, not federal courts. The opinion states plainly that where Pidge sought relief from two federal court decisions, her remedy lies with the federal court.
The petition also sought to vacate a Housing Court judgment and obtain a monetary settlement, but the opinion does not detail the court’s reasoning on those requests. The federal court issue alone doomed the petition.
The Discretionary Motions
Pidge’s two subsequent motions fared no better. She sought appointment of counsel, which the second single justice denied twice (once in the county court and once when the motion was refiled in the full court). The SJC found no abuse of discretion. Appointment of counsel in civil cases is not a matter of right. The opinion states that Pidge was not entitled to appointed counsel.
The motion for alternative service was also within the single justice’s discretion to deny. The court provided no further explanation, but the denial left Pidge with the obligation to serve the respondents under the standard rules. She did not do so.
What Happens Next
Nothing. The dismissal of all three appeals leaves the original denial of the G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in place, along with the denials of the motions for counsel and alternative service. Pidge remains pro se. If she believes the federal district court erred, her recourse is in the federal system, not the Massachusetts courts.
The case illustrates the strict enforcement of procedural rules, particularly service requirements. A pro se litigant’s failure to comply with Mass. R. A. P. 13 proved fatal. The court did not reach the merits in detail because the service failures alone warranted dismissal, though it confirmed that the underlying rulings were correct.
Read the full opinion: Pidge v. The Governor (SJC-13894,-13902-&-13905, October 22, 2026).