Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, Summary process.
Dannielle Briscoe, pro se.
Jessica Ragosta Early & Jean-Phillip Brignol for the
plaintiff, Akkima Dannielle Briscoe, appeals from a judgment
of a single justice of this court dismissing, without a
hearing, her complaint seeking relief in the nature of
mandamus. There was no error.
appeal arises out of the efforts of the defendant, LSREF3/AH
Chicago Tenant, LLC, to recover possession of and rent for
certain real property occupied by the plaintiff. After
judgment entered for the defendant in a summary process
proceeding, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the county
court generally alleging error in connection with that
proceeding and seeking relief from the judgment that entered.
The single justice concluded that the plaintiff was not
entitled to relief under G. L. c. 249, § 5, because she
failed to pursue other available remedies. See Skandha
v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Civil Business in Suffolk
County, 472 Mass. 1017, 1018 2015) (single justice
properly denies extraordinary relief where litigant failed to
pursue available alternative remedies). See also Callahan
v. Superior Court, 410 Mass. 1001, 1001 (1991)
("mandamus will not issue to direct a judicial officer
to make a particular decision or to review, or reverse, a
decision made by a judicial officer on an issue properly
before him or her").
plaintiff has now filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to
S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). The rule
only applies where a single justice has denied relief from an
interlocutory ruling in the trial court. It does not
apply to this appeal because, at the time the plaintiff filed
her complaint, judgment had already entered in the summary
process proceeding. Regardless, it is clear on the record
before us that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief
because she could have obtained review of the summary process
judgment (and any other claims of error concerning those
proceedings) through the ordinary appellate process. See
Yahya v. Rocktop Partners I, LP, 479 Mass. 1035,
1036 (2018); Wallace v. PNC Bank, N.A., 478 Mass.
1020, 1020 (2018). See also Salomon S.A. v. LaFond,
463 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2012) (jurisdictional claims may be
reviewed on appeal). As the single justice recognized, relief
in the nature of mandamus is not available where the ordinary
appellate process would suffice. See Myrick v. Superior
Court Dep't, 479 Mass. 1012, 1012 (2018) .
according to the county court's docket, the plaintiff
failed timely to claim this appeal from the judgment entered
in the county court. See Mass. R. A. P. 4 (a), as amended,
464 Mass. 1601 (2013). The single justice's judgment
entered on July 24, 2018, and he denied the plaintiff's
motion to amend the judgment on August 6, 2018. The
plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed more than thirty
days later, on September 24, 2018. This is another reason not
to disturb the judgment. See Kellerman v. Kellerman,
390 Mass. 1007, 1008 (1984) ("fact [that appellant] was
appearing pro se does not excuse the failure to file the
claim of appeal within the applicable time period").
"A pro se litigant is bound by the same rules of
procedure as litigants with counsel." International
Fid. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 387 Mass. 841, 847
case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a
memorandum of law.
 The complaint identifies the defendant
as "LSREF3/AH Chicago Tenant LLC," whereas the
record on appeal contains some materials that suggest that
"LSREF3" and "AH Chicago Tenant, LLC" may
be separate entities. It is unnecessary to our decision to
resolve the point; our reference to the defendant in the
singular includes both possibilities.
 The single justice also correctly
denied the plaintiff's motions to amend the judgment and
to impound the record.
 We need not address other possible
bases for the denial of relief. It suffices to say that it is
highly unlikely that mandamus relief would have been