Lettieri v. Kennelly et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DAVID C. LETTIERI,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
25-13086-BEM
ORDER
MURPHY, J.
On August 13, 2025, pro se plaintiff David C. Lettieri, who is confined at FMC Devens,
filed a civil complaint, Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”), and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
Dkt. No. 3.1 Lettieri brings this action against Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United States
District Court for Norther District of Illinois and FMC Devens staff. 	Lettieri challenges Judge
Vilardo’s dismissal of Lettieri v. Court of Clerk Chicago Division, C.A. No. 25-03591 (N.D. Ill.).
With regard to FMC Devens staff, Lettieri alleges mailroom personnel failed to treat mail
addressed to Lettieri from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as
“Legal Mail” and unlawfully opened it outside of his presence. Lettieri further alleges that he did
not file a grievance concerning the mail because, in March 2025, FMC Devens staff threatened to
transfer him to another prison if he continued to file informal grievances.
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
1 Lettieri did not include the six-month prison account statement required under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(2).
Case 1:25-cv-13086-BEM Document 9 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
appeal that was dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous, was 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 imminent
danger a three-strikes prisoner alleges to obtain IFP status[,] and the legal claims asserted in his
complaint.”).
Lettieri has, while a prisoner, filed three or more actions in federal district courts that were
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 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. Northeast Ohio Corr. Ctr., No. 23-01690, ECF No. 5 (N.D.
Ohio Nov. 22, 2023); Lettieri v. Federal Marshals, No. 23-01872, ECF No. 6 (N.D. Ohio Nov.
30, 2023); Lettieri v. New York State Troopers, No. 23-02077, ECF No. 4 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 21,
2023); Lettieri v. Northeast Ohio Corr. Ctr., No. 23-02172, ECF No. 4 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2023).
Indeed, prior to the commencement of this action, this Court had already determined that Lettieri
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 come
to 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 Lettieri 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”).
Lettieri asserts that, if the FMC Devens staff followed through with their admonition that
Lettieri could be transferred to another prison, “it could be to a more dangerous prison when the
plaintiff could barely speak at times because of a paralyzed vocal cord.” Compl. ¶ 7. 	Lettieri
Case 1:25-cv-13086-BEM Document 9 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
alleges that he “has been in fear of such and since then he [has] not done any informal resolutions
since if transfer[red] the plaintiff wouldn’t be able to hell for help if [he] got stabbed. 	Id. ¶ 8.
These speculative allegations of possible injury if he is transferred to a different prison are
insufficient to show that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Therefore, the
Court must deny his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED with prejudice.
If Lettieri wishes to proceed with this action, he must, within twenty-eight (28) days, pay the $405
filing fee. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.
So Ordered.
/s/ Brian E. Murphy
Brian E. Murphy
Dated: January 16, 2025 	Judge, United States District Court
Case 1:25-cv-13086-BEM Document 9 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 3