Sabrina M. Williams v. Jennifer M.R. Ulwick.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 23-P-1508
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-1508

SABRINA M. WILLIAMS

vs.

JENNIFER M.R. ULWICK.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, Sabrina Williams, appeals from the dismissal

of her civil action in the Superior Court against the defendant,

Probate and Family Court Justice Jennifer Ulwick. This action

concerns a divorce case in which Williams was a party and

Justice Ulwick was the presiding judge. As the complaint sought

review of the proceedings in the Probate and Family Court, the

Superior Court judge dismissed the action, among other reasons,

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Mass. R. Civ. P.

12 (b) (1), 365 Mass. 754 (1974).

We affirm the dismissal. The Superior Court does not have

the power to grant relief with respect to rulings of the Probate

and Family Court -- put differently, it does not have appellate jurisdiction with respect to the actions of that court.

Furthermore, to the extent that Williams's complaint could be

characterized as seeking mandamus relief directing the Probate

and Family Court judge to act, the Superior Court does not have

jurisdiction over mandamus actions against other courts.

Background. As indicated, this case arises out of a

divorce proceeding, the parties to which were Williams and her

ex-husband R.W. (the divorcing spouses), and for which, in part,

the defendant was the presiding judge.1 In November of 2021, a

modification judgment issued granting R.W. sole custody of his

and Williams's child. Subsequently, the divorcing spouses filed

a number of motions and other pleadings. In response, in July

of 2022, the court issued an order requiring both divorcing

spouses to seek permission of the court before filing further

motions or complaints.

On June 6, 2023, Williams filed a motion for permission to

file a motion for joint custody under Probate and Family Court

Standing Order 2-99. Subsequently, R.W. filed an answer to a

prior complaint filed by Williams, without seeking permission of

the court.

1 We have taken judicial notice of certain docket entries and papers filed in the related action. See Home Depot v. Kardas, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 27, 28 (2011).

2 On July 3, 2023, Williams filed the present action against

the defendant. The nature of the action is not clear from the

complaint; the complaint alleges (1) that the defendant was

"unfair and impartial towards [Williams]" in that R.W. was

"allowed" to file an answer without seeking the court's

permission; (2) that the defendant was "unfair to [Williams]" in

that she denied certain of Williams's motions after R.W. filed

his answer without permission; and (3) that the defendant did

not comply with Probate and Family Court Standing Order 2-99,

seemingly because the defendant had not yet ruled on Williams's

motion.

The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and in

November of 2023, the court granted the defendant's motion. As

grounds therefor, the court stated that "this court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint because it has no

jurisdiction to review Probate and Family Court proceedings and

rulings or to alter such rulings."

Discussion. "We review the allowance of a motion to

dismiss pursuant to rule 12 (b) (1) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction de novo, accepting the complaint's allegations as

true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the

plaintiff." Nordberg v. Commonwealth, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 237,

239 (2019). We agree that the Superior Court did not have

3 jurisdiction to review the defendant's judicial actions in the

Probate and Family Court case.

Here Williams's complaint asked the Superior Court judge,

for example, to review the defendant's "allow[ance]" of an

answer filed by R.W., to review the defendant's orders denying

certain motions of Williams, and also to review the timeliness

of the defendant's response to a motion of Williams. However,

orders and actions of the Probate and Family Court may be

appealed to this court or the Supreme Judicial Court, not the

Superior Court. See G. L. c. 215, § 9. The Superior Court had

no jurisdiction to review these orders.

Williams does argue that as to the actions Williams

challenges, the defendant was acting "outside of her judicial

capacity."2 This argument is without merit for the simple reason

that the actions Williams complains of are all judicial

acts -- they are actions (or alleged inactions) of the defendant

with respect to matters before her as a judge. The Superior

2 In her brief, Williams discusses proceedings in her Probate and Family Court case, involving the defendant, which occurred after July 3, 2023. These are not the subject of the present case on appeal and accordingly we do not consider them.

Williams also claims that the defendant was untimely in responding to the complaint, and that the Superior Court judge should not have granted the defendant additional time to respond. As the complaint was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we need not consider these claims of error.

4 Court judge correctly ruled that he lacked the power to address

such claims. See Nordberg, 96 Mass. App. Ct. at 239, quoting

Wachovia Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 316 (2006)

("[s]ubject matter jurisdiction 'concerns a court's competence

to adjudicate a particular category of cases'").

Finally, if we were to construe Williams's complaint as a

civil action in the nature of mandamus, see G. L. c. 249, § 5,

jurisdiction still would not lie with the Superior Court. The

Superior Court does not have original jurisdiction to hear

actions in the nature of mandamus against other courts, or

judicial officers thereof. See G. L. c. 211, § 4A; G. L.

c. 213, § 1A.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Henry, Desmond & Englander, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: February 6, 2025.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.