Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Imre KIFOR v. COMMONWEALTH & others.1
The petitioner, Imre Kifor, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.
In his petition, Kifor stated that he was seeking relief from “activities” of the respondents that “are continually not according to the course of the common law.” His claims appear to stem from several different proceedings, both in the trial court and the Appeals Court, and he argued, among other things, that he has been subject to systemic fraud and “preclusion” of appeals. He also argued that his due process rights have been violated. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing.
Kifor has now filed what purports to be a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), even though, as best we can discern from the record, he is not challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court. Indeed, it is difficult to discern what, specifically, he is challenging, although it is clear that he is expressing general dissatisfaction with various lower court rulings and judgments. This is not the first time that Kifor has sought relief in this court. See, e.g., Kifor v. Commonwealth, 490 Mass. 1003, 188 N.E.3d 963 (2022). In that case, as here, Kifor had adequate alternative remedies available to him, notwithstanding his assertions to the contrary. Indeed, he has pursued several of those avenues, including in the Appeals Court. See, e.g., Kifor v. Duchesne, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1111, 190 N.E.3d 1121, S.C., 490 Mass. 1106, 195 N.E.3d 903 (2022). That those appeals were not successful -- that is, that they did not lead to decisions in Kifor's favor -- does not entitle Kifor to additional review. General Laws c. 211, § 3, “does not provide a second opportunity” for relief. Guzzi v. Secretary of Pub. Safety, 450 Mass. 1016, 1016, 877 N.E.2d 934 (2007). “Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where there are adequate and effective routes other than c. 211, § 3, by which the petitioning party may seek relief.” Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019, 672 N.E.2d 535 (1996).
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
Judgment affirmed.
RESCRIPT
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: SJC-13310
Decided: October 13, 2022
Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)