Cardenas v. Clerk-Magistrate of Superior Court

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Cardenas v. Clerk-Magistrate of Superior Court

916 N.E.2d 370, 455 Mass. 1006, 2009 Mass. LEXIS 720

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 10, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 916 N.E.2d 370 (Cardenas v. Clerk-Magistrate of Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cardenas v. Clerk-Magistrate of Superior Court, 916 N.E.2d 370, 455 Mass. 1006, 2009 Mass. LEXIS 720 (Mass. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Alejandro Cardenas appeals, pro se, from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He had sought relief from alleged inaction in the Superior Court in scheduling and acting on various motions that he had filed in a civil matter pending in that court. The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Cardenas failed to create a record before the single justice substantiating his allegations. Absent were copies of relevant motions and other materials, e.g., the written correspondence he claims he had with the clerk-magistrate and with the Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Trial Court. On this record, the single justice neither abused her discretion nor otherwise erred in denying Cardenas’s request to invoke this court’s extraordinary superintendence power. See Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998); Matthews v. D’Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021, 1022 (1997).

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Alejandro Cardenas appeals, pro se, from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He had sought relief from alleged inaction in the Superior Court in scheduling and acting on various motions that he had filed in a civil matter pending in that court. The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Cardenas failed to create a record before the single justice substantiating his allegations. Absent were copies of relevant motions and other materials, e.g., the written correspondence he claims he had with the clerk-magistrate and with the Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Trial Court. On this record, the single justice neither abused her discretion nor otherwise erred in denying Cardenas’s request to invoke this court’s extraordinary superintendence power. See Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998); Matthews v. D’Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021, 1022 (1997).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

916 N.E.2d 370, 455 Mass. 1006, 2009 Mass. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardenas-v-clerk-magistrate-of-superior-court-mass-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack