SEAVER v. COMMONWEALTH (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, convicted of the murder of his mother in 1960, when he was eighteen years old, and incarcerated for much of the ensuing sixty years, has now filed this civil suit, purporting to seek a declaratory judgment.³ A regional administrative justice refused to endorse ⁴ and subsequently dismissed the complaint, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the complaint failed to state a claim. We affirm.

The thrust of the plaintiff's contentions is that in 1960, he was unlawfully charged as an adult, because under the procedures in effect in 1960 he was entitled to a transfer hearing before his murder charge was transferred from the Juvenile Court. He claims the Juvenile Court had jurisdiction over him because he had been committed to the custody of Youth Services until his twenty-first birthday, as a result of unrelated crimes. This argument has been presented to this court at least twice before, in connection with the plaintiff's prior motions for a new trial. It was rejected in 2006, Commonwealth v. Seaver, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 (2006), and again in 2011, Commonwealth v. Seaver, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 1124 (2011). This court need not examine the issue once again. See Commonwealth v. Stephens, 451 Mass. 370, 375-376 (2008).

The remainder of the plaintiff's arguments are unavailing. His contentions regarding violation of the separation of powers and illegal incarceration both rest on the same alleged inability to charge the plaintiff as an adult. These two arguments similarly are precluded by the previous rulings by different panels of this court. See Seaver, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 1124; Seaver, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 1116.

Finally, the plaintiff contends that the Superior Court does have jurisdiction to hear his complaint for a declaratory judgment. We need not decide the issue, as the judge dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim as well as for lack of jurisdiction. As none of the claims stated may properly be relitigated, the dismissal was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

3.   The plaintiff has filed at least three motions for a new trial in his criminal case. The first motion for a new trial was denied in 2004 and affirmed on appeal by a panel of this court in 2006. Commonwealth v. Seaver, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 (2006). The second motion for a new trial was denied in 2010 and affirmed on appeal by another panel of this court in 2011. Commonwealth v. Seaver, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 1124 (2011). A third motion for a new trial was filed in 2019. The plaintiff has filed a number of civil cases relating to his incarceration as well. See, e.g., Skandha v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civil Business in Suffolk County, 472 Mass. 1017 (2015). The plaintiff sometimes refers to himself as Bodhisattava Skandha. See Seaver, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 1124 n.1.

4.   The plaintiff is subject to an October, 2011, order in the Suffolk County Superior Court as a result of his repeated litigation of his allegedly illegal confinement. See Skandha, 472 Mass. at 1019. The order provides that “any new case received by the clerk's office shall be reviewed by the regional administrative justice prior to acceptance for filing.” Id.