WILSON v. COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY (2025)

Raymond Wilson, III, appeals from a judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

In November 2023, Wilson commenced an action in the District Court against Commerce Insurance Company (Commerce). On Commerce's motion, Wilson's complaint was struck and dismissed in January 2024 by a District Court judge (first judge). Wilson filed a notice of appeal (merits appeal) and a request for waiver of fees due to indigency. The latter request was referred to a different District Court judge, who denied it. Wilson filed a notice of appeal as to that decision as well (indigency appeal). Commerce moved to strike and to dismiss the indigency appeal. The first judge allowed that motion and ordered that all future filings submitted by Wilson be reviewed by a clerk-magistrate or judge for compliance with the rules of court and that noncompliant filings not be docketed. Wilson attempted to file a notice of appeal from that order, but the first judge ordered that it not be docketed and that Wilson pay Commerce a reasonable attorney's fee of $250. Wilson's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition ensued. The single justice denied relief without reaching the merits on the ground that he found no exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of the court's extraordinary power.

Where, as here, the single justice denies relief without reaching the merits of the petition, “the appeal to the full court ‘is strictly limited to a review of that ruling,’ ․ and the full court asks only whether the single justice abused his or her discretion in making that decision” (citations omitted). Boone v. Commonwealth, 494 Mass. 1011, 1012–1013, 232 N.E.3d 703 (2024). An abuse of discretion occurs where “the judge made ‘a clear error of judgment in weighing’ the factors relevant to the decision, such that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives.’ ” Commonwealth v. Jones, 478 Mass. 65, 69, 82 N.E.3d 1013 (2017), quoting L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27, 20 N.E.3d 930 (2014). Wilson has shown no abuse of discretion here. Although Wilson lodges several objections regarding the District Court proceedings, the single justice was not obligated to find those objections “important enough to warrant extraordinary relief.” Gorbatova v. Lynn Div. of the Dist. Ct. Dep't, 495 Mass. 1036, 1037, 254 N.E.3d 1189 (2025). “The single justice was well within [his] discretion to conclude that this case did not ‘present[ ] the type of exceptional matter that requires the court's extraordinary intervention.’ ” Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 25, 120 N.E.3d 707 (2019). Because Wilson was not entitled to extraordinary relief, the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion.

Judgment affirmed.

RESCRIPT