Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2018

Murray v. Mass. Parole Bd. & Another

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided December 27, 2018

113 N.E.3d 327; 481 Mass. 1019 (North Eastern Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

James Murray, pro se., **1019The 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 affirm., Although 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 (c ),3 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, 884 N.E.2d 954, quoting G. L. c. 127, § 128, including "inmate[s] serving a Massachusetts sentence in another [S]tate." G. L. c. 127, § 134 (c ). The petitioner is not such an inmate.4 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).

Opinion of the Court

In Murray v. Commonwealth, 455 Mass. 1016, 1016-1017, 918 N.E.2d 787 (2009), we *329described 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." Id. at 1017, 918 N.E.2d 787. 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 **1021parole, without prior approval of a single justice of this court.5

Judgment affirmed.

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 In re Hines, 432 Mass. at 1005 n.1, 732 N.E.2d 274, citing Milton v. Boston, 427 Mass. 1016, 1017, 696 N.E.2d 141 (1998), and Campiti v. Commonwealth, 426 Mass. 1004, 1005, 687 N.E.2d 268 (1997).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.