Opinion
SJC-13618
10-31-2024
BHARANI PADMANABHAN v. LORETTA COOKE
Bharani Padmanabhan, pro se.
The case was submitted on briefs.
Bharani Padmanabhan, pro se.
Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari.
The petitioner, Bharani Padmanabhan, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of the county court denying his emergency petition for relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4. We affirm.
In 2017, the petitioner commenced an action against the respondent in the Superior Court claiming slander; libel; intentional infliction of emotional distress; malicious prosecution and abuse of process; and tortious interference with employment and professional licensing. Numerous times during the course of the trial court proceedings the petitioner sought to have the Attorney General "disqualified" from representing the respondent, including in this court. See Padmanabhan v. Cooke, 483 Mass. 1024, 1025 (2019) (detailing petitioner's various efforts to have the Attorney General disqualified and affirming single justice's denial of G. L. c. 249, § 4, petition). Notwithstanding the fact that his several motions and petitions in the trial court, the Appeals Court, and this court were unsuccessful, he has continued to press the issue. In his most recent certiorari petition, he again sought to have the Attorney General disqualified. He also argued that the trial court has not been "neutral" toward him and has, among other things, tampered with an audio recording of a hearing in that court. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing, and the petitioner appeals.
While the petitioner's appeal has been pending, the jury trial on his underlying claims against the respondent took place over the course of three days. The jury found in favor of the respondent. To the extent that the petitioner sought relief, via the certiorari petition, in connection with the trial court proceedings, the petition is moot. Even if the petition was not moot, however, the petitioner would fare no better. Notwithstanding his arguments to the contrary, he has not, and cannot, demonstrate that his claims are not otherwise reviewable on appeal. See Padmanabhan, 483 Mass. at 1025, quoting G. L. c. 249, § 4 ("Certiorari review is designed to 'correct errors in proceedings which are not . . . otherwise reviewable by motion or by appeal'"). There is no reason why, for example, the petitioner cannot, in a direct appeal from the judgment, seek review of the trial court's denial of his motion to disqualify the Attorney General or of his claims that someone tampered with an audio recording in the trial court.
The single justice did not abuse his discretion or commit other error of law in denying relief under G. L. c. 249, § 4.
After filing his brief in this court, the petitioner filed a motion to expedite his appeal, which the court denied. He then filed a second motion to expedite his appeal; a motion to declare that the respondent, who has not filed a brief, has forfeited argument; an emergency motion asking the court to declare that the appeal to this court was misclassified on the docket and asking for reclassification; and two motions to expedite consideration of his earlier motions. The motions are denied.
Judgment affirmed.