Davis v. Noonan

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking relief from the denial of his application for a criminal complaint, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to extraordinary relief.

Petitioner filed an application seeking a criminal complaint against Respondent on three counts. The district court refused to issue the complaint, finding that no probable cause supported the first two counts. Petitioner subsequently filed this petition seeking relief from the determination that no probable cause existed to support the first count. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to extraordinary relief under the circumstances.

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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-13431 JETHRO DAVIS vs. LEANNE M. NOONAN. November 21, 2023. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. District Court, Clerk-magistrate. Practice, Criminal, Complaint, Issuance of process. The petitioner, Jethro Davis, filed a petition in the county court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking relief from denial of his application for a criminal complaint. The petition was denied without a hearing by a single justice of this court. We affirm. Davis filed an application in the District Court seeking a criminal complaint against the respondent on three counts. The clerk-magistrate in the District Court did not issue the requested complaint, finding no probable cause to support the first two counts, and referring the third count to the district attorney's office on the basis that it was a felony offense over which the District Court did not have final jurisdiction. Thereafter, Davis filed the instant petition seeking relief from the clerk-magistrate's determination that no probable cause existed to support the first count, charging falsification of a police report. The single justice denied the petition on the basis that Davis had an adequate alternative remedy, in light of his ability to seek review from a judge in the District Court. This appeal followed. "General superintendence relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary." Culley v. Cato, 460 Mass. 1009, 1010 (2011). It is to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances, and thus, a "single justice is not required to become involved if the petitioner has an adequate alternative 2 remedy or if the single justice determines, in his or her discretion, that the subject of the petition is not sufficiently important and extraordinary as to require general superintendence intervention." Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 24-25 (2019). Although Davis had no statutory right to appeal from the denial of his application by the clerk-magistrate, "as a matter of District Court practice, [Davis] had an opportunity to request a redetermination of the matter by a judge." Roberts v. Hingham Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 486 Mass. 1001, 1002 (2020), citing standard 3:22 of the District Court Standards of Judicial Practice: The Complaint Procedure (amended Oct. 1, 2008). See Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint, 477 Mass. 1010, 1011 (2017) ("Where a clerk-magistrate denies a private party's application for a criminal complaint, the applicant's recourse is to request rehearing by a judge in the same court"). Moreover, this court has "consistently declined to review, under the authority given to us by G. L. c. 211, § 3, refusals to issue complaints." Bradford v. Knights, 427 Mass. 748, 752 (1998). In these circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled to extraordinary relief. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on briefs. Jethro Davis, 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.