Opinion
18-P-1623
10-25-2019
Jon MYERS v. Sondra MYERS & others.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Jon Myers, sought to reopen a lawsuit he had filed in the Superior Court in 2012, apparently alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress by his parents and his now deceased ex-wife. The Superior Court docket reflects that the case was dismissed, that judgment entered against the plaintiff in 2013, and that this court affirmed the judgment of dismissal in 2014.
The plaintiff has not provided us with the underlying pleadings. The case is described in the Superior Court docket summary as "defamation," but the plaintiff's brief describes a thirty-year pattern of emotional abuse by the defendants and discusses in depth the law concerning the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
--------
Four years later, on April 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed a paper entitled "Motion to Define and Stop an Evil Case of Emotional Abuse and for Relief Thereof." The plaintiff has not provided us a copy of this motion, but in denying the motion on April 13, 2018, a Superior Court judge (first judge) stated that the submission is more than seventy pages long, "fails to identify or cite to any legally cognizable basis for relief requested," and "seeks to revisit and rehash matters that were already litigated in this case." The Superior Court docket indicates the following activity thereafter. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on May 22, 2018, and then a timely notice of appeal, which he withdrew within a week. On July 17, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time to file an appeal, which was denied on August 9, 2018. His motion for reconsideration of that action was denied by a different Superior Court judge (second judge) on September 18, 2018, and the denial was entered on the Superior Court docket on September 21, 2018. The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration of his motion to extend the time to file an appeal, which is the only matter before us. See Robinson v. Boston, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 765, 771 (2008).
Because the plaintiff has not provided us with copies of any of the relevant pleadings, we are unable to discern, and we need not consider, whether the second judge erred in denying the motion for reconsideration of the motion to extend the time to file an appeal. "The appellant has the duty to assemble such materials as will make it possible for the court to consider the points of law he raises." New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. v. Assessors of Dartmouth, 368 Mass. 745, 749 (1975). See Chokel v. Genzyme Corp., 449 Mass. 272, 279 (2007). In any event, the second judge likely lacked the power to extend the time for filing the appeal. See Mass. R. A. P. 4 (c), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1607 (2019) ("Upon a showing of excusable neglect, the lower court may extend the time for filing the notice of appeal by any party for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this rule" [emphasis added] ).
Although the merits of the underlying issue -- that is, whether the first judge erred in denying the plaintiff's motion seeking to reopen the case -- are not before us, we observe that the denial of that motion appears to be proper. Under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), the permissible reasons for relief from a final judgment are extremely narrow and must be asserted within a reasonable time. See Owens v. Mukendi, 448 Mass. 66, 71-72 (2006). From the materials before us, it appears that the first judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that the plaintiff did not make an adequate showing of legally sufficient grounds for relief.
We are aware that the plaintiff perceives his treatment by his family as "a story of Biblical proportions" based on a series of events that "threatens a gigantic moral stain on this universe," and that he has turned to this court for relief. Given the posture of the appeal before us, however, the plaintiff is not entitled to reopen the lawsuit he filed in 2012.
The order dated September 18, 2018 (docketed on September 21, 2018), denying the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of his motion to extend the time to file an appeal, is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.