RASTEN v. DISTRICT A., NORFOLK DIS., 438 Mass. 1006 (2002)

779 N.E.2d 133

ANINA RASTEN vs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE NORFOLK DISTRICT.

SJC-08661Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
December 3, 2002.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Anina Rasten, pro se.

Ellen McCusker Devlin, Assistant District Attorney, for the defendant.

Anina Rasten appeals from the denial of her petition pursuant to G.L.c. 211, § 3, by a single justice of this court.

We affirm.

Rasten’s petition is fundamentally flawed in at least two respects. First, Rasten has failed to satisfy her burden of creating a record sufficient to substantiate her allegations. See Lu v. Boston Div. of theHous. Court Dep’t, 432 Mass. 1005, 1005-1006 (2000) (petitioner must demonstrate, not merely allege, violation of substantive right). Second, she has failed to demonstrate that she could not obtain her requested relief through some other adequate and effective means. Rasten v.Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168
(2001) (petition properly denied where petitioner failed to demonstrate why appeal or appropriate postjudgment motion would not have provided adequate remedy).

“Our review is limited to errors of law including abuse of discretion.”Commonwealth v. Sowell, 412 Mass. 1009, 1009 (1992). There was no error.

Judgment affirmed.

Page 1007