Court Case Record Peter J. Chongarlides, Sr. v. Harold W. Clarke, et al 2011-J-0066 UID(a980)

Peter J. Chongarlides, Sr. v. Harold W. Clarke, et al Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0066

Case Number2011-J-0066
Case TitlePeter J. Chongarlides, Sr. v. Harold W. Clarke, et al
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date02/15/2011
Close Date02/18/2011


Peter J. Chongarlides, Sr.Pro Se Plaintiff/Petitioner
Tabitha M. Schneider, Esquire John T. Plouffe, EsquireHarold W. ClarkeDefendant/Respondent
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
02/15/2011 #1 Verified motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Peter J. Chongarlides, Sr.
02/15/2011 #2 RE#1: Allowed as to the entry fee for the plaintiff's petitions arising from SUCV2010-01384 and SUCV2009-03117.
02/15/2011 #3 PETITION pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Peter J. Chongarlides, Sr.
02/18/2011 #4 RE#2: On February 14, 2011, the Appeals Court received the plaintiff's petition for interlocutory relief, which seeks review of two orders entered by a Superior Court judge. The first order was entered on October 19, 2010, and the second order, which denied reconsideration, was entered on January 7, 2011. The petition is dismissed because it was not filed within thirty days of the subject order. See G. L. c. 231, § 118 (first par.). Failure to meet the statutory deadline deprives the single justice of authority to consider the petition, and a single justice is without jurisdiction to enlarge the time limit set by statute. Cf. Nissan Motor Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 407 Mass. 153, 157 (1990); Friedman v. Board of Regist. in Medicine, 414 Mass. 663, 665 (1993). Consequently, the petition is dismissed as untimely. (Lenk, J.). Notice/attest/Lauriat, J.
03/10/2011 #5 Letter from Peter Chongarlides, Sr., requesting status of notice of appeal.
03/25/2011 #6 RE#3: A review of Superior Court docket no. SUCV2010-01384 shows that final judgment has yet to enter in that matter. The filing of a notice appeal from an interlocutory order does not preserve the filer's right of review of the order before the single justice. Pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, a petition must be filed in the Appeals Court within thirty days of the entry of the order, along with the appropriate fee or motion to waive the fee. As indicated in the Order, dated 2/18/11, no petition was filed within the specified time period, and therefore the petition was denied. At the entry of final judgment in this matter, and after the filing of a notice of appeal within thirty days of the entry of the judgment, the orders in question may be reviewed on plenary appeal by a panel of this court. *Notice.
03/30/2011 Letter from Peter Chongarlide, Sr., requesting a copy of the docket.
04/01/2011 RE#4: A copy of the docket shall be sent to the petitioner forthwith.. *Notice.
04/05/2011 Copy of docket sent to Peter J. Chongarlides, Sr.
06/08/2011 Notice of appeal, filed by Peter J. Chongarlides, Sr..
07/22/2011 Motion for Extension of time filed by Peter Chongralides.