SKANDHA v. COMMONWEALTH (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

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

In his proposed complaint, Skandha, as purported “next friend and Buddhist advocate” of fellow inmate David A. Proulx, sought a declaratory judgment under G. L. c. 231A that Proulx's “further incarceration [was] in violation of State and Federal [l]aw.”³ According to Skandha, Proulx's conviction was based on improper “profile testimony” from the Commonwealth's expert witness.

The plaintiff is subject to an order in the Superior Court for Suffolk County requiring prior judicial review of any complaint before acceptance for filing.⁴ See Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civ. Business in Suffolk County, 472 Mass. 1017, 1019 (2015). Pursuant to that order, the regional administrative justice conducted a review of the complaint and denied Skandha leave to file for “lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, and lack of authority to represent Mr. Proulx in a civil action requiring an attorney.”⁵

We discern no abuse of discretion in the judge's order denying Skandha leave to file the complaint. Skandha offers no authority, and we have found none, for the proposition that a defendant convicted in a criminal case may challenge an evidentiary ruling by the trial judge through a complaint for declaratory judgment pursuant to G. L. c. 231A. Moreover, although Skandha claims that he has standing as Proulx's “next friend” because Proulx is incompetent, there is no indication or even an allegation that Skandha has been appointed Proulx'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]). The complaint for declaratory judgment was properly rejected.

Order denying leave to file complaint affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

3.   In 1984, Proulx was convicted of murder in the second degree of a two year old child. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Proulx, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 985 (1987). Two motions for a new trial were denied, and those orders were affirmed on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Proulx, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 454, 454 n.1 (2004). A third motion for a new trial was allowed by a Superior Court judge, but that order was reversed on appeal in 2004. See id. at 467.

4.   The order is based on the plaintiff's voluminous filings in the Superior Court. The plaintiff does not challenge the order in this appeal.

5.   The Superior Court has discretion to enjoin a plaintiff from bringing future legal proceedings without prior leave of the court when such an injunction is necessary to put “a stop to harassing, vexatious, and repetitious litigation.” State Realty Co. of Boston v. MacNeil, 341 Mass. 123, 124 (1960). See Russell v. Nichols, 434 Mass. 1015, 1015-1016 (2001); Berkson v. Palmer & Dodge, LLP, 428 Mass. 1002, 1002 (1998).