SKANDHA v. MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The plaintiff, Bodhisattva Skandha, is an inmate currently incarcerated at Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk (MCI-Norfolk). He appeals from an order denying him leave to file a complaint in the Superior Court. We affirm.

In his proposed complaint, Skandha, as plaintiff and purported “next friend” of Larry Wampler (also known as Hung Tan Vo), seeks a declaratory judgment under G. L. c. 231A essentially declaring that Wampler's new trial motion, filed in Commonwealth v. Wampler, No. 9181-cr-0808 (Middlesex Super. Ct.), was erroneously denied.³

The plaintiff-appellant is subject to an order in the Superior Court for Suffolk County requiring prior judicial review of any complaint before acceptance for filing. See Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civil Business in Suffolk County, 472 Mass. 1017, 1019 (2015). The regional administrative justice conducted this review and denied the plaintiff leave to file his complaint, stating that “declaratory judgments are not available to review decisions of the criminal side of this Court, nor does plaintiff [Skandha] have standing to assert Mr. Wampler's rights.”

The judge did not abuse his discretion or commit legal error in screening out the plaintiff-appellant's complaint. Skandha does not explain how a civil remedy under G. L. c. 231A applies to a criminal case. Moreover, although Skandha suggests that he has standing, as Wampler's “next friend,” to assert Wampler's rights because, essentially, Wampler allegedly is incompetent and Skandha “is truly dedicated to the best interest of the real person of interest,” there is no indication or even an allegation that Skandha has been appointed Wampler's guardian or “next friend.” See Enos v. Secretary of Envtl. Affairs, 432 Mass. 132, 135 (2000) (“standing is not measured by the intensity of the litigant's interest or the fervor of his advocacy” [citation omitted] ).

Order denying leave to file complaint affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

3.   Wampler was convicted, in 1992, of murder in the first degree by reason of deliberate premeditation. See Commonwealth v. Vo, 427 Mass. 464, 464-465 (1998). Both Wampler's conviction and the order denying Wampler's original new trial motion were affirmed on appeal. See id. at 473. Thereafter, Wampler, acting pro se, on several occasions requested representation to pursue another new trial motion. Wampler was unsuccessful. Wampler eventually filed a pro se motion (i) for appointment of counsel; and (ii) to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. A judge of the Superior Court denied that motion in 2016. It is this 2016 order that seems to be at issue in Skandha's present proposed complaint.