Opinion
20-P-664
01-04-2022
Harry HENTON v. Jamie WILLIAMSON & others.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
This case involves a long, multi-pronged dispute spanning many years centered around the plaintiff's 2013 removal from his role as a substitute teacher in the Worcester Public School system. On appeal, he maintained that his removal was rooted in discrimination from his past criminal record and veteran status. He further claimed that his criminal record resulted from false allegations brought against him by an officer of the Worcester Police Department and prosecuted by defendant Assistant District Attorneys Carley and Sullivan. Based on these beliefs, in 2013, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, (MCAD). After an investigation, defendant Jamie Williamson, an MCAD investigating commissioner, dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. The plaintiff appealed the decision, but Williamson affirmed the lack of probable cause finding following a preliminary hearing.
The plaintiff filed four separate lawsuits in both the Superior Court and the District of Massachusetts concerning the MCAD dismissal and the defendants’ allegedly wrongful acts. The underlying action here was the fourth such lawsuit, filed by the plaintiff pro se in Worcester Superior Court. It alleged discrimination, retaliation, and several intentional torts, among other claims. A judge of the Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, failure to comply with the relevant statute of limitations, and res judicata. The plaintiff timely appealed.
The judge granted the motion based on "the reasons stated during oral argument and in the [d]efendant's memorandum in support of this motion."
After properly filing his notice of appeal, however, the plaintiff failed to file a brief. As a result, this Court dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 19 (e), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1642 (2019). The plaintiff proceeded to file a "[m]emorandum and [s]tatement of [r]easons in [s]upport with [p]etition to [r]eopen." The Court did not accept the filing, as in order to reinstate the appeal, the plaintiff was required to file a motion to vacate the dismissal of appeal. The plaintiff did not do so. Instead, he filed a notice of appeal and later a "[r]equest to perfect appeal." Treating the latter request as a motion for reinstatement, a single justice of this Court denied the plaintiff relief. The justice explained that the plaintiff failed to show that the appeal was meritorious and that its dismissal was the result of excusable neglect. The plaintiff then filed a petition to reopen, a docketing statement, and a notice of appeal, which this court treated as a notice of appeal from the order of the single justice, to be limited to the "propriety" of said order.
Discussion. We begin by emphasizing the narrow scope of our review, which is limited to assessing the actions of the single justice for an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Troy Indus., Inc. v. Samson Mfg. Corp., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 575, 581 (2010). The plaintiff, though, does not argue that the single justice judge erred or abused his discretion in denying his motion for reinstatement. His brief fails to address the sole issue before us and instead raises a number of constitutional arguments. We reject his efforts to eschew his burden on appeal and expand the nature of our inquiry.
"[A] motion to reinstate an appeal is an extraordinary request and should not be granted lightly." Commonwealth v. Hurley, 391 Mass. 76, 79 (1984). An appellant who seeks to reinstate a civil appeal before a single justice must make a two-part showing (1) that his failure to prosecute was the result of excusable neglect and (2) that he has a meritorious case on appeal. See Howard v. Boston Water and Sewer Comm'n, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 119, 122-123 (2019).
The plaintiff did not attempt to show to the single justice or to us that his failure to prosecute the case was justified by excusable neglect or that his case "present[s] a question of law deserving of judicial investigation and discussion" (quotation and citation omitted), despite the multiple grounds the Superior Court cited for dismissal. Howard, 96 Mass. App. Ct. at 123-125 (single justice did not abuse her discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to reinstate appeal where plaintiff failed to show case could survive application of claim preclusion). Because he failed to make either showing requisite to obtaining relief, the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for reinstatement.
Order of the single justice denying motion for reinstatement affirmed.