Opinion
13-P-1869
11-19-2014
RICHARD G. TATUM v. MARYANNE CURTIS & others.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Richard G. Tatum, appeals from a Superior Court regional administrative justice's order dated August 20, 2013, denying his request to file a complaint against the defendants. The plaintiff is subject to a Superior Court order dated June 27, 2012, prohibiting him from filing any civil action relating to specified property unless it is first approved by a regional administrative justice. The plaintiff has not demonstrated that the regional administrative justice abused her discretion. From what we can discern from the plaintiff's appeal, this is his seventh attempt to relitigate issues long resolved, and it is a frivolous appeal. See Supeno v. Equity Office Properties Mgmt., LLC, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 470, 473-474 (2007).
Considering the time and expense to which the defendants have been subjected, occasioned by the plaintiff's frivolous appeal and his demonstrated inability to respect the final judgments of the State and Federal courts, the clerk of the Massachusetts Appeals Court shall not accept for filing any appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of a regional administrative justice relating to the above-stated Superior Court order dated June 27, 2012, unless the plaintiff first obtains approval from a single justice of this court who finds that the proposed appeal raises potentially meritorious issues that have not been previously determined. See Gorod v. Tabachnick, 428 Mass. 1001, 1002 (1998); Watson v. A Justice of the Boston Div. of the Hous. Ct. Dept., 458 Mass. 1025, 1027 (2011).
Defendant Cynthia Hanley has requested appellate attorney's fees and double appellate costs, and we allow that request. Hanley shall file her petition for determination of the amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred on appeal, consistent with Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004), within fourteen days of the date of the rescript. The plaintiff may file any opposition within fourteen days from the date Hanley files her petition.
Order dated August 20, 2013, affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Grainger & Maldonado, JJ.),
Clerk Entered: November 19, 2014.