Cooper v. CVS Pharmacy

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Petitioner's petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying Petitioner's request.

The Court noted that none of the materials Petitioner filed in connection with his petition established any basis for relief. Further, the Court determined that the dismissal of each case in the superior court was subject to appeal to the appeals court in the ordinary process. In addition to denying relief the Court ordered the clerk of the county court not to accept any further filings from Petitioner in this case.

Download PDF

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 5571030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12679 JOHN COOPER vs. CVS PHARMACY. May 17, 2019. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. In 2008, we affirmed a judgment of the county court denying John Cooper's petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Cooper v. CVS Pharmacy, 450 Mass. 1024, 1025 (2008). At that time, Cooper appeared to be seeking relief from a 1998 order of the Superior Court prohibiting him from filing claims in that court without prior review by an attorney (or at least an attempt to obtain such review) and the approval of the regional administrative justice. Id. at 1025. The order appears to have been based on his history of frivolous filings. Nothing in the record before us indicates that the 1998 order has been vacated or modified. In 2017, Cooper resumed filing materials in the county court, under the same docket number as his previous filings, again apparently seeking to reopen a number of civil cases commenced by him in the Superior Court, all of which were dismissed.1 A single justice of this court denied Cooper's request, and Cooper appeals. We affirm. Cooper has filed several handwritten memoranda in the full court and a request to treat his original county court papers as his record appendix in this appeal. It is clear from these materials that he has established no basis for relief. Nothing in the materials, which are virtually indecipherable but appear to make general allegations of mistreatment without offering any specific facts, presents any ground for disturbing the judgment Court records suggest that Cooper has at times been able to file complaints in the Superior Court, notwithstanding the 1998 order. 1 2 of the single justice. Moreover, the dismissal of each case in the Superior Court was subject to appeal to the Appeals Court in the ordinary process. Our superintendence power is not "a substitute for the normal appellate process or . . . an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course." Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005). This appeal is not materially different from Cooper's previous appeal in 2008. We therefore order the clerk of the county court not to accept any further filings from him in this case. Additionally, we place Cooper on notice that any further attempt to invoke our general superintendence power in circumstances like this in other cases may result in an appropriate sanction from this court, including a possible restriction on his future filings. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. John Cooper, pro se.

Primary Holding

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the county court's denial of Petitioner's petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying Petitioner's request.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.