MAC S. HUDSON
SUPERINTENDENT, MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, CONCORD, & another.
Question. Practice, Civil, Moot case.
Hudson, pro se.
Richard E. Gordon for the respondents.
petitioner, Mac S. Hudson, appeals from the judgment of a
single justice of this court denying his petition for relief
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We dismiss the appeal as
petitioner is a prisoner at the Massachusetts Correctional
Institution, Concord. He filed a complaint in the Superior
Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, seeking review of
a certain inmate disciplinary report against him. A Superior
Court judge denied the petitioner's motion to amend the
complaint, and a single justice of the Appeals Court denied
his petition seeking interlocutory review of that ruling
under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. The petitioner
thereafter filed a petition in the county court, pursuant to
G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking relief from the Superior
Court's order. A single justice of this court denied the
petition on the ground that the "petitioner has an
adequate, alternate remedy and extraordinary circumstances
are not present." See Mirrione v. Jacobs, 446
Mass. 1001, 1001 (2006), quoting Greco v. Plymouth Sav.
Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996) ("Review
under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie where review under
[G. L.] c. 231, § 118, would suffice"). See also
Stolpinski v. McGillicuddy, 425 Mass. 1002, 1002
(1997) (denial of motion to amend complaint may be addressed
on direct appeal). The petitioner appeals.
the single justice denied relief, the underlying inmate
disciplinary report was dismissed, the guilty finding was
expunged from the petitioner's administrative record, and
the amount he was ordered to pay in restitution was returned
to his institutional account. The respondents moved in the
Superior Court to dismiss the certiorari complaint as moot,
and the petitioner consented to the dismissal of the
disciplinary report and expungement of his record. The judge
dismissed the complaint on the ground of mootness, and final
judgment to that effect has entered.
case is now before us on the respondents' motion to
dismiss the petitioner's appeal from the judgment of the
single justice. Where the underlying disciplinary report has
been dismissed, and the complaint seeking certiorari review
is no longer pending, the appeal is moot in the sense that
the relief the petitioner sought from the single justice,
i.e., leave to amend his complaint, can no longer be granted.
See Martin v. Commonwealth, 452 Mass. 1028, 1029
(2008). It is also moot with respect to the original
certiorari complaint that was filed; the dismissal of the
disciplinary report, "in effect, rendered moot any
defects in the underlying proceedings." Burns
v. Commonwealth, 430 Mass. 444, 447 (1999).
case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a
memorandum of law.
 Lauren Vinisky.
 According to the G. L. c. 211, §
3, petition, the proposed amendments generally sought to
correct certain "deficiencies" in the
petitioner's complaint, to raise additional claims
related to the disciplinary hearing, and to add other claims
concerning alleged retaliation and other disciplinary
proceedings. The petitioner argued that relief was warranted
under c. 211, § 3, because, if those matters were not
joined in the Superior Court proceeding, applicable
limitations periods or principles of claim preclusion might
impede his ability to assert them.
 The petitioner's appeal is subject
to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which
applies where, as here, a single justice denies relief from