Lettieri v. Facebook

Background

David C. Lettieri filed a pro se complaint while incarcerated at Niagara County Jail. The complaint named Facebook, Facebook employee Tyler Harmon, and Western District of New York Assistant United States Attorneys Paul E. Bonnano and Maeve Eileen Huggins as defendants.

Lettieri alleged that, in May 2023, he viewed a Facebook chat that Randall Garver claimed was being provided for discovery. He demanded access to two or three additional weeks of chats that a victim allegedly had with him. The complaint alleged that Garver and defendant Bonnano said they would respond but had not done so as of October 10, 2023. Lettieri alleged that Harmon lied and committed perjury and that the chat violated Federal Rule of Evidence 901, which governs the authentication or identification of evidence.

Screening and Analysis

Because Lettieri was a prisoner seeking relief from government-related defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, but must still provide more than labels, conclusions, or a bare accusation of unlawful conduct.

The court identified several independent problems. First, it held that Federal Rule of Evidence 901 does not provide a private right of action. The court relied on authority explaining that federal procedural rules do not create substantive rights or remedies enforceable in federal court.

Second, the court stated that Lettieri appeared to be challenging an evidentiary decision in an ongoing criminal proceeding in another federal district court in New York. The court held that it could not review decisions of another district court and lacked authority to issue a writ directing another district court to act.

Third, the court stated that Lettieri appeared to be asserting a Bivens claim against Bonnano and Huggins. A Bivens claim is a damages remedy recognized by the courts in limited circumstances for certain constitutional violations by federal officials. The court explained that the Supreme Court has recognized such a remedy in only three contexts: unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, gender discrimination under the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and deliberate indifference to an inmate’s health care. The court concluded that expanding Bivens to the alleged prosecutorial-misconduct context would involve a new context and that courts consistently refuse to extend the remedy to new contexts or categories of defendants.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. It further ruled that dismissal was with prejudice because amendment would be futile. The court ordered the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against Lettieri and to close the case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order on June 17, 2024.