OSCAR v. STONE SKILLET LLC (2025)

The pro se petitioner, Jordan Oscar, filed a petition in the county court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking relief from the denial of his motion to file late a notice of appeal. The petition was denied by a single justice of this court, and Oscar appealed. We affirm.²

In 2022, Oscar filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court against the respondents. Both respondents filed motions to dismiss, which were allowed, and judgment entered on March 16, 2023, dismissing the complaint. Oscar filed a motion for reconsideration shortly thereafter, but that motion was denied.

On June 3, 2024, Oscar sought leave to file a late notice of appeal with a single justice of the Appeals Court. The single justice denied relief, and Oscar appealed to a full panel of the Appeals Court. During the pendency of that appeal, however, Oscar filed the underlying petition in the single justice session of the Supreme Judicial Court. That petition was summarily denied, and Oscar now appeals to the full court.³

A petitioner is not entitled to relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, where he or she “has or had adequate and effective avenues other than G. L. c. 211, § 3, by which to seek and obtain the requested relief” (citation omitted). Marnerakis v. Phillips, Silver, Talman, Aframe & Sinrich, P.C., 445 Mass. 1027, 1027, 840 N.E.2d 951 (2006). On appeal, we will not disturb a single justice's decision to deny relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, “absent clear error of law or abuse of discretion.” Adjartey v. Central Div. of the Hous. Court Dep't, 481 Mass. 830, 833, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019), quoting Fogarty v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 103, 106, 546 N.E.2d 354 (1989).

Here, Oscar had an adequate remedy in the ordinary appellate process from the dismissal of his civil complaint, by way of a timely direct appeal. When his request to file an untimely notice of appeal was denied by a single justice of the Appeals Court, he also had (and pursued) an additional avenue of relief by appealing that decision before a panel of the Appeals Court. See Rasheed v. Commonwealth, 440 Mass. 1027, 1027, 798 N.E.2d 1022 (2003) (petitioner had adequate alternative remedy, where he “could have appealed to a panel of the Appeals Court from the Appeals Court's single justice's denial of his motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal”). “The fact that he did not receive relief does not render the ordinary appellate process inadequate for purposes of G. L. c. 211, § 3.” Tavares v. Commonwealth, 481 Mass. 1044, 1044, 116 N.E.3d 1215 (2019). Accordingly, the single justice did not commit a clear error of law or otherwise abuse her discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The petitioner's motion to file a nonconforming brief is hereby allowed. The petitioner has also submitted a filing entitled “motion of entry missing pages.” That filing contains a copy of the docket report for the Superior Court matter, as well as narrative statements, some of which do not appear to have been before the single justice in the county court. The supplemental materials would not, in any event, affect the outcome of this appeal, and therefore, we take no action on that motion.

3.   On March 18, 2025, the Appeals Court, in an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 23.0, affirmed the ruling of the Appeals Court single justice denying Oscar leave to file a late notice of appeal. See Oscar v. Stone & Skillet, LLC, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 1119, 255 N.E.3d 634 (2025).

RESCRIPT