Opinion
JC-13593
08-22-2024
TOYSHA LONDON DARBY v. COMMONWEALTH & others.[1]
Toysha London Darby, pro se.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
Toysha London Darby, pro se.
The petitioner, Toysha London Darby, filed a petition in the county court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, requesting various forms of relief, including the issuance of a writ of mandamus, a writ of replevin, and emergency injunctive relief. The petition was denied by a single justice of this court, and Darby appealed. After her appeal was entered in this court, Darby filed a motion requesting, among other things, that her filing be treated as a memorandum pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001) .
Rule 2:21, which concerns the denial of relief from a challenged interlocutory ruling in the trial court, does not apply here, as Darby seeks to challenge the disposition of two civil matters she filed in the Superior Court that have already gone to final judgment. See Costello v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., 480 Mass. 1027, 1027 (2018). In any event, regardless of the applicability of rule 2:21, Darby is not entitled to relief unless she first "establish[es] the absence of adequate alternative relief." Oak-hee Kim v. Newton Hous. Auth., 493 Mass. 1029, 1030 (2024). See Wallace v. PNC Bank, N.A., 478 Mass. 1020, 1020 (2018), and cases cited. Darby cannot meet this burden, as it is readily apparent that she has a remedy in the ordinary appellate process -- i.e., by way of a direct appeal -- and, indeed, one that she is actively litigating in the Appeals Court. Accordingly, the single justice did not commit an error of law or abuse his discretion in denying relief.
To the extent that Darby contends that her direct appeal requires expedited review, or that she is entitled to injunctive relief pending the disposition of her appeal, she may request such relief before the Appeals Court. See Mass. R. A. P. 2, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1603 (2019); Mass. R. A. P. 6 (a), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1608 (2019). See also Negron v. Commissioner of Correction, 483 Mass. 1034, 1034 (2020) . In fact, Darby has already filed numerous motions in the Appeals Court to this effect. Indeed, her requests for expedited review in the Appeals Court, and to file a nonconforming brief, have apparently been granted by a single justice of that court. See See Mushwaalakbar v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 627, 631-632 (2021) (court may take judicial notice of docket entries).
In light of our conclusion, we need not address each of the additional, miscellaneous requests for relief contained within Darby's filings before this court.
Judgment affirmed.
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.