JOSÉ L. NEGRÓN
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.
Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Indigent.
Practice, Civil, Costs.
L. Negr6n, pro se.
Negr6n appeals from a judgment of the county court denying,
without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. c.
211, § 3. We affirm.
is the plaintiff in a civil action pending in the Superior
Court in which he is challenging certain regulations of the
Department of Correction. A judge in the Superior Court
determined that Negr6n was indigent and waived the filing fee
for the Superior Court action, but denied his motion to make
service of process on the defendants via regular mail; the
judge ordered him to make service on all defendants by
certified mail at his own expense and to return the green
receipt card for each defendant. The judge also denied
Negr6n's subsequent motion for reconsideration.
then sought review from a single justice of the Appeals Court
of the judge's order requiring service of process by
certified mail, and he requested a waiver of the Appeals
Court's filing fee for his single justice petition. A
single justice of the Appeals Court, after reviewing
Negr6n's affidavit of indigency and other information
provided pursuant to G. L. c. 261, § 29, ordered that
Negr6n pay a significantly reduced filing fee for his
petition. Negr6n's motion for reconsideration of this
order was denied, as was his motion for leave to appeal from
the denial of reconsideration. Contending that the reduced
amount was nonetheless too high, Negr6n then filed the
instant G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition. A single justice of
this court denied all relief without a hearing.
case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended,
434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a party challenging an
interlocutory ruling of the trial court to "set forth
the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot
adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse
judgment in the trial court or by other available
means." Negr6n has not done so. To the extent that
he is challenging the underlying interlocutory ruling of the
Superior Court requiring him to make service by certified
mail, his remedy lies with a single justice of the Appeals
Court, and indeed, as described supra, he is
pursuing such a remedy. To the extent that he is challenging
the ruling of the single justice of the Appeals Court
requiring him to pay a reduced filing fee in connection with
his petition in that court, rule 2:21 does not apply.
Nonetheless, it is clear that Negr6n has an adequate remedy
in the ordinary appellate process from the single
justice's ruling, "namely an appeal to a panel of
the Appeals Court from the order of the single justice of
the Appeals Court" declining to waive the fee outright
or to reduce it further. See Hunt v. Appeals Court, 444
Mass. 460, 463 (2005) (litigant aggrieved by order of Appeals
Court single justice refusing to waive or reduce filing fee
has right to appeal single justice's order to panel of
Appeals Court) .
Negr6n has these remedies in the ordinary appellate process,
the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion by
denying extraordinary relief.
case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a
memorandum of law.
 The Superior Court case originated as
a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition filed by Negr6n in the
county court. A single justice -- not the one who denied
relief in the instant case -- ordered that the matter be
transferred to the Superior Court. That petition is not
 Action on the petition before the
Appeals Court single justice, i.e., the request for review of
the Superior Court order requiring service of process by
certified mail, has been stayed.
 Negr6n's papers in this court are
styled as an "application for further appellate
review" and a "further appellate review
brief." Further appellate review is inapplicable here,
however, where he is appealing from a judgment of the county
court rather than seeking further review after a decision of
an Appeals Court panel. We treat his papers as a memorandum