── Muckle v. Lamothe ──
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date: June 04, 2026
Category: General
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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) 557-
1030;
[email protected]
SJC-13903
PAUL L. MUCKLE vs. MARIE B. LAMOTHE & others.1
June 4, 2026.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
The petitioner, Paul L. Muckle, appeals from a judgment of
the county court denying his petition for relief under G. L.
c. 211, § 3. We affirm.
This matter arises from a civil lawsuit that Muckle
commenced in the Brockton Division of the District Court
Department. In the course of those proceedings, a defendant
named in Muckle's first amended complaint filed a motion to
remove the case to the Superior Court based upon the amount in
controversy. A judge in the District Court treated the motion
as one seeking dismissal and issued an order denying the motion.2
After Muckle filed a second amended complaint, the two
defendants named in that complaint each submitted a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ.
P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). Those motions were granted
by another judge in the District Court. The judge also denied
various motions filed by Muckle, including a motion for summary
1 Arbella Insurance Group and the Brockton Division of the
District Court Department.
2 The judge wrote in a margin endorsement, "The plaintiff
has zero expectation of recovery in excess of $50,000.00 or a
million dollars. The plaintiff claims his amended complaint was
phrased to get the attention of the defendant. The special
damages were close to . . . small claim damages. This is not a
complex case that cannot be decided upon in the district court."
2
judgment. Thereafter, Muckle filed the instant petition
requesting relief from a number of these rulings. A single
justice denied the petition without a hearing, and this appeal
followed.
On appeal from a judgment of the single justice, "[i]t is
well settled that this court will not reverse [that decision] in
the absence of an abuse of discretion or clear error of law"
(citation omitted). Matter of an Impounded Case, 491 Mass. 109,
114 (2022). A single justice does not err or abuse her
discretion in declining to grant relief pursuant to G. L.
c. 211, § 3, where there are other adequate and effective
remedies available. See Martineau v. Department of Correction,
423 Mass. 1007, 1007 (1996).
Muckle has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which
concerns the denial of relief by a single justice of this court
"from a challenged interlocutory ruling in the trial court."
Passing on the question whether rule 2:21 applies in these
circumstances,3 Muckle has "offer[ed] no reason why he cannot
obtain adequate review" of the rulings he complains of "in an
ordinary appeal from a final judgment." Muckle v. Commonwealth,
455 Mass. 1008, 1008 (2009). Indeed, Muckle concedes that he
has the ability to seek review through the normal appellate
process but contends that he "should not have to suffer the
financial and emotional difficulties" of waiting for his appeal
to be perfected in the ordinary course. Although this court has
recognized that in very narrow circumstances " certain
substantive rights may not survive the delays inherent in the
normal appellate process," such that a direct appeal would not
provide an adequate alternative remedy, Muckle has not
demonstrated that this matter implicates any such right.
Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Operation Rescue,
406 Mass. 701, 708 (1990). Accordingly, the single justice did
not commit an er