Kifor v. Commonwealth

Annotate this Case

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

In his petition, Petitioner asserted claims appearing to stem from several different proceedings in the trial court and appeals court arguing, among other things, that he had been subjected to systemic fraud and "preclusion" of appeals and that his due process rights had been violated. The single justice denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 was properly denied.

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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-13310 IMRE KIFOR vs. COMMONWEALTH & others.1 October 13, 2022. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 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 (2022). In that case, as here, Kifor had adequate alternative remedies available to him, Attorney General and Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department. 1 2 notwithstanding his assertions to the contrary. Indeed, he has pursued several of those avenues, including in the Appeals Court. See, e.g., Duchesne v. Kifor, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1111, S.C., 490 Mass. 1106 (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 (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 (1996). The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Imre Kifor, pro se.

Primary Holding

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.