MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiffs, Bahig and Mary Bishay (hereinafter the Bishays or plaintiffs), appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court that dismissed a “Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” that was signed by both of them. The factual basis for the complaint appears to arise from a foreclosure that was initiated several years ago.
In 2014, a Superior Court judge entered an injunction (2014 injunction) that provides, among other things, that any complaint that either Bahig or Mary Bishay submits for filing in a “Massachusetts state court of original jurisdiction” shall first be reviewed by a Regional Administrative Justice (RAJ) to determine whether the complaint is frivolous. If the RAJ determines that the complaint is frivolous, the complaint shall be dismissed.
The process established by the 2014 injunction was followed in this case. The RAJ reviewed the complaint and various other materials submitted by the Bishays, and, after a hearing, determined that the complaint was frivolous and dismissed the case.
The Bishays’ brief on appeal does not identify any error of law or abuse of discretion in the judges decision. The complaint does not identify facts from which a judge could conclude that there is a plausible basis for the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in the complaint. Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 635-636 (2008). The judgment dismissing the complaint is accordingly affirmed.
So ordered.
affirmed