Lettieri v. Federal Medical Center et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DAVID C. LETTIERI,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER
DEVENS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 25-cv-13251-ADB
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
BURROUGHS, D.J.
Pro se plaintiff David C. Lettieri, who is confined at FMC Devens, has filed a “writ
under Title 28 United States Code 1651” that was entered on the docket as Lettieri’s complaint.
ECF No. 1. He also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.1 As set
forth below, the Court will deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the claim with prejudice.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner bringing a non-habeas action
generally cannot proceed in forma pauperis if he has, on three or more prior occasions, filed an
action or appeal that was dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Where a prisoner has
“three strikes,” he may only proceed in forma pauperis if he is “under imminent danger of
serious physical injury” with regard to the misconduct alleged in the complaint. Id.; see also
Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[T]here must be a nexus between the
1 Plaintiff did not include the six-month prison account statement required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
Case 1:25-cv-13251-ADB Document 4 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
imminent danger a three-strikes prisoner alleges to obtain IFP status[,] and the legal claims
asserted in his complaint.”).
Plaintiff has, while a prisoner, filed multiple appeals or non-habeas civil actions in
federal courts that were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. See, e.g., Lettieri v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., Nos. 24-248, 24-1304, 2025 WL
2122767 (2d Cir. Mar. 31, 2025); Lettieri v. Auricchio, No. 24-3166, 2025 WL 3633163 (2d Cir.
Mar. 27, 2025); Lettieri v. Broome Cnty. Humane Soc’y, No. 24-3169, 2025 WL 3654243 (2d.
Cir. Mar. 26, 2025); Lettieri v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 24-1311, 2025 WL 1420547
(2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2025); Lettieri v. Broome Cnty. Humane Soc’y, No. 23-8098, 2025 WL 1745141
(2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2025); Lettieri v. Suffolk Cnty. Police, No. 24-1804, 2024 WL 5500583 (2d Cir.
Dec. 11, 2024); Lettieri v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., No. 24-1500, 2024 WL 5485742 (2d Cir. Dec. 11,
2024); Lettieri v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of N.Y., No. 24-1533, 2024 WL 5680035 (2d Cir.
Dec. 11, 2024); Lettieri v. Broome Cnty. Humane Soc’y, No. 24-528, 2024 WL 5480747 (2d Cir.
Nov. 22, 2024); Lettieri v. Daniels, No. 23-00867, ECF No. 3 (W.D.N.Y Oct. 16, 2023); Lettieri
v. Reynolds, No. 23-00925, ECF No. 4 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2023); Lettieri v. Ne. Ohio Corr.
Ctr., No. 23-01690, ECF No. 5 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 22, 2023); Lettieri v. Fed. Marshals, No. 23-
01872, ECF No. 6 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2023); Lettieri v. N.Y.State Troopers, No. 23-02077,
ECF No. 4 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 21, 2023); Lettieri v. Ne. Ohio Corr. Ctr., No. 23-02172, ECF No. 4
(N.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2023). Prior to the commencement of this action, this court had already
determined that plaintiff is a “three strikes” litigant, see, e.g., Lettieri v. Santander Bank N.A.,
No. 24-10361-AK, ECF No. 4 (D. Mass. Mar. 15, 2024), and the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit has reached the same conclusion, see Lettieri v. Santander Bank N.A., No.
24-1781, 2025 WL 2823585, at *1 (1st Cir. June 18, 2025) (dismissing appeal because plaintiff
Case 1:25-cv-13251-ADB Document 4 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
had “not paid the appellate filing fee in full and ha[d] not shown why the appeal should be
permitted to proceed without payment of the full filing fee despite his ‘three-strikes’ status”).
Thus, plaintiff cannot proceed without prepayment of the $405 filing fee unless he
plausibly pleads in his complaint that the defendants’ alleged misconduct places him in imminent
danger of serious physical injury. He has made no such showing. In his pleading, plaintiff
complains of interference with his legal mail and his access to the courts. These are not
allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury, and accordingly the complaint will be
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons:
1. 	The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
2. 	This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.
So Ordered.
/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
Allison D. Burroughs
United States District Judge
March 27, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-13251-ADB Document 4 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 3