MATTHEWS v. MASS. CORRECTIONAL, 438 Mass. 1012 (2003)

782 N.E.2d 490

SJC-08582Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
January 24, 2003.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Civil, Record.

Lloyd Matthews, pro se.

David J. Rentsch for the defendants.

RESCRIPT.

The petitioners appeal from the denial of their petition pursuant to G.L.c. 211, § 3, by a single justice of this court. We affirm.

The petitioners sought an order compelling the Superior Court to resolve a pending motion for a preliminary injunction in an underlying declaratory judgment action. They claimed that, despite repeated requests, the court had failed to rule on the motion for over three years. [3]

Page 1013

As we have stated repeatedly, it is the petitioners’ obligation to “create a record — not merely . . . allege but . . . demonstrate, i.e., . . . provide copies of the lower court docket entries and any relevant pleadings, motions, orders, recordings, transcripts, or other parts of the lower court record necessary to substantiate [the] allegations.” Lu v. Boston Div. of the Hous. Court Dep’t, 432 Mass. 1005, 1005 (2000), quoting Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 100, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 100 (1998). Here, the petition fell far short of that standard. Indeed, the petitioners failed to provide the single justice with copies of their complaint in the underlying action and the motion they wanted resolved. In the absence of an adequate record, denial of the G.L.c. 211, § 3, petition was appropriate. See Russell v. Nichols, 434 Mass. 1015, 1016 (2001) (“single justice was not required, on the limited facts before her, to grant the relief sought”); Matthews v. D’Arcy, 425 Mass. 1021 (1997) (earlier petition filed by Matthews properly denied where he had failed to satisfy his “duty to substantiate his allegation”). [4]
Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on briefs.