Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Parole.
Murray, pro se.
petitioner, James Murray, also known as James Hines, appeals
from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying,
without a hearing, his petition for equitable relief. We
petitioner was convicted in 1982 of armed robbery and escape.
His consecutive committed sentences "were to be served
from and after sentences he was, and still is, serving in
Federal prison in connection with offenses committed in the
District of Columbia. In 2003, he was granted parole from
Federal prison, but declined to be released because he did
not want to return to Massachusetts to serve his 'from
and after' sentences."  Murray v.
Massachusetts Parole Bd., 451 Mass. 1002, 1003
(2008) (seeking order directing Massachusetts Parole Board to
aggregate Massachusetts and District of Columbia sentences).
See Murray vs. Bledsoe, U.S. Dist. Ct., Nos. 10-11019,
11-10905 (D. Mass. Sept. 11, 2012), aff'd, U.S.Ct. App.,
No. 12-2245 (1st Cir. June 03, 2014) ("[s]ince 2003, the
United States Parole Commission has ordered the petitioner
paroled to the custody of Massachusetts authorities on at
least three occasions. Each time the petitioner has refused
to sign the parole certificate, nullifying the parole").
the petitioner has not yet begun serving his Massachusetts
sentences, the petition filed in the county court essentially
sought an order requiring that he be considered for parole,
citing G. L. c. 127, § 134 (c0,  and general principles of
equity. The single justice properly denied the petition.
"To the extent that the petitioner seeks credit toward
satisfaction of his Massachusetts sentences for the time he
has remained incarcerated in Federal prison since he was
granted but refused release on parole, such relief is not
available because he is not currently serving his
Massachusetts sentences; the [Massachusetts Parole] [B]oard
is authorized to make parole decisions affecting only
'prisoners in [S]tate and county correctional
institutions, '" Murray, 451 Mass. at 1003,
quoting G. L. c. 127, § 128, including "inmate[s]
serving a Massachusetts sentence in another [S]tate." G.
L. c. 127, § 134 (cO . The petitioner is not such an
inmate. See Murray vs. Stempson, U.S.
Dist. Ct., No. 92-0118 (D.D.C. May 1, 1992) (denying
petitioner's request for order directing District of
Columbia Parole Board to aggregate his District of Columbia
sentences with his Massachusetts sentences).
Murray v. Commonwealth, 455 Mass.
1016, 1016-1017 (2009), we described the petitioner's
history of filing multiple improper and ultimately
unsuccessful actions in this court to challenge his
Massachusetts sentences. We put him "on notice that any
future attempt to seek extraordinary relief from this court,
pursuant to G. L. c. 214, § 1; G. L. c. 211, § 3;
or otherwise, raising like claims may result in appropriate
action by the court." I_d. at 1017. We now order,
therefore, that until such time as the petitioner actually
begins serving his Massachusetts sentences, he shall not be
permitted to file any further action in this court
challenging the validity or status of his sentences or his
entitlement to parole, without prior approval of a single
justice of this court.
 Advisory Board of Pardons.
 The petitioner's multiple prior
attempts to challenge aspects of his Massachusetts sentences
have been unsuccessful. See Murray v.
Commonwealth, 455 Mass. 1016, 1017 (2009)
(dismissing as moot petition for equitable relief concerning
sentence appeals); Murray v.
Massachusetts Parole Bd., 451 Mass. 1002, 1003
(2008) (Parole Board without authority to make parole
decisions where petitioner not serving Massachusetts
sentences); Murray v.
Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2006) (seeking
relief in nature of mandamus concerning sentence appeals);
Hines, petitioner, 432 Mass. 1004, 1005 (2000) (G.
L. c. 211, § 3, petition seeking certification of
question concerning constitutionality of consecutive
sentences or an advisory opinion); Hines v.
Commonwealth, 425 Mass. 1013, 1013 (1997) (G. L. c.
211, § 3, petition alleging errors in connection with
sentence appeals); Hines v.
Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1004, cert, denied, 519 U.S.
984 (1996) (seeking relief, pursuant G. L. c. 211, § 3,
from imposition of consecutive sentences on and after
sentence being served in District of Columbia). See also
Hines v. Superior Court, 423 Mass.
1005, cert, denied, 519 U.S. 984 (1996) (seeking relief from
convictions, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3).
 General Laws c. 127, § 134 (c0,
provides in part that "in the case of an inmate serving
a Massachusetts sentence in another [S]tate, the chairman may
request the paroling authority of that [S]tate or at the
written request of the inmate the [F]ederal paroling
authority with jurisdiction over the institution in which
said inmate is housed to conduct a hearing in lieu of the
Massachusetts board for the purpose of ascertaining the
suitability of such inmate for a parole permit and to report
its findings and recommendations as to parole and conditions
of parole to the board."
 We again "express no view on the
merits of the petitioner's claims were he to raise them
after returning to Massachusetts to begin serving his
sentences." Murray, 451 Mass. at 1003
 We decline to address additional
issues raised by the petitioner on appeal that were not
raised before the single justice, or to consider materials
that were not included in the record before her. See
Hines, petitioner, 432 Mass. at 1005 n.l, citing
Miltonv.Boston, 427 Mass. 1016,