IMRE KIFOR v. COMMONWEALTH & Others.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-855

IMRE KIFOR

vs.

COMMONWEALTH & others.1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, Imre Kifor, appeals from a judgment of the

Superior Court dismissing his complaint for relief in the nature

of certiorari on the grounds that the defendants are entitled to

absolute immunity, the action is barred by claim preclusion, the

complaint fails to comply with Mass. R. Civ. P. 8, 365 Mass. 749

(1974), and the complaint fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. The plaintiff also appeals from an order

1Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of Revenue,
Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department,
and Barbara A. Duchesne. The plaintiff never made proper
service of Duchesne. Although the plaintiff was entitled to
file an amended complaint as of right, Mass. R. Civ. P. 15 (a),
365 Mass. 761 (1974), he instead moved for leave to file an
amended complaint, which would have added Cynthia S. Oulton as a
defendant. No action was taken on that motion.
denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. The gist of

the plaintiff's complaint is that various rulings of the Probate

and Family Court and the Supreme Judicial Court discriminate

against him, constitute retaliation for protected complaints,

interfere with his rights, and aid in employment discrimination

against him.

The argument section of the plaintiff's brief is four pages

long, and it is devoid of any explanation why the Superior Court

judge was wrong that the complaint is barred by immunity and

claim preclusion, fails to comply with Mass. R. Civ. P. 8, and

fails to state a claim. Arguments not raised in the appellant's

brief are waived. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9) (A), as

appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). Accord Tody's Serv., Inc.

v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 496 Mass. 197, 199 n.3 (2025).

Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are

also waived. See, e.g., Springfield Water & Sewer Comm'n v.

Department of Envtl. Protection, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 721, 730 n.9

(2025); Commonwealth v. Lugo, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 309, 316 n.6

(2024). In any event, even in the reply brief, the plaintiff

fails to explain why the Superior Court judge erroneously

concluded that the plaintiff's claims were barred by absolute

immunity or failed to state a claim on which relief could be

granted. Instead, the plaintiff states that absolute immunity

2
"confirms that no such protection [against discrimination]

applies to straight white males & legal immigrants" and that its

existence "also confirms that Father's only option for 'adequate

remedy' is in federal court." Putting aside the fact that

absolute immunity applies in Federal court as well, see

Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227-228 (1988), absolute

immunity neither applies selectively against straight white

males nor bars the plaintiff from raising claims of

discrimination in the course of judicial proceedings. The

plaintiff can raise such arguments in those judicial proceedings

and seek appellate review if dissatisfied with the resolution of

such complaints, rather than suing the courts and related

entities. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Washington W., 457 Mass.

140, 142 (2010), S.C., 462 Mass. 204 (2012). If dissatisfied

with the rulings of the Massachusetts courts, the plaintiff can

seek review by the United States Supreme Court, as he has done

3
in the past. See Kifor v. Massachusetts, 144 S. Ct. 591 (2024);

Kifor v. Massachusetts, 143 S. Ct. 2504 (2023).

Judgment affirmed.

Order denying motion to alter
or amend judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Massing,
Ditkoff & Hand, JJ.2),

Clerk

Entered: May 19, 2026.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

4