The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed a ruling that denies Jerome Moton's petition for extraordinary relief in his eviction case against the Fall River Housing Authority (FRHA). The court's decision, issued on November 9, 2026, means that Moton will not regain possession of the property he was evicted from, nor will he receive the return of personal property taken during the eviction process.

This ruling is significant for Moton, who has been engaged in legal battles with the FRHA over his eviction and the validity of the judgments against him. The court's decision clarifies the limits of extraordinary relief under Massachusetts law and emphasizes the importance of utilizing standard appellate procedures in eviction cases.

Background

Jerome Moton is the petitioner in this case, challenging the actions of the Fall River Housing Authority, which initiated eviction proceedings against him. The dispute arose from two Housing Court cases. The first involved a summary process proceeding initiated by the FRHA, which resulted in an agreed judgment favoring the authority. Following this judgment, the FRHA sought execution of the eviction, which was granted in December 2025. Moton's attempts to stay the execution were denied at multiple levels, including a single justice of the Appeals Court.

The second case involved a civil action filed by Moton against the FRHA in the Superior Court, where he sought to challenge the validity of the summary process judgment. This case was transferred to the Housing Court, where it was dismissed in July 2026 on the FRHA's motion. Frustrated by these outcomes, Moton filed a petition for extraordinary relief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in August 2026.

The Ruling

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against Moton, affirming the decision of the single justice who denied his petition. The court stated, "Moton failed to demonstrate the absence of an adequate alternative avenue to pursue the relief sought." The judges emphasized that Moton had other legal remedies available to him, including the option to appeal the final judgments from the Housing Court. The court noted that Moton could have sought to expedite his appeal process, which he did not adequately demonstrate he was unable to do.

Furthermore, the court explained that Moton's request for the return of personal property taken during the eviction process could have been pursued through a petition in the Housing Court. The judges concluded that the single justice acted within her discretion in denying Moton's petition for extraordinary relief, stating, "the subject of the petition is not sufficiently important and extraordinary as to require general superintendence intervention."

Impact

This ruling has important implications for individuals facing eviction and those seeking extraordinary relief in Massachusetts. It reinforces the notion that individuals must first exhaust available legal remedies, such as appeals, before seeking extraordinary intervention from the Supreme Judicial Court. The decision clarifies that the court will not intervene if adequate alternative remedies exist.

For Moton, the ruling means he will not regain possession of his property or receive compensation for his personal belongings taken during the eviction. The court's decision serves as a reminder to others in similar situations to follow proper legal channels and understand the limitations of extraordinary relief petitions.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Moton plans to appeal this ruling further. However, as the Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed the single justice's decision, Moton may have limited options for further legal recourse.