Lettieri v. Facebook

Background

David C. Lettieri filed this action without a lawyer against Facebook, Facebook employee Tyler Harmon, and Western District of New York Assistant United States Attorneys Paul E. Bonnano and Maeve Eileen Huggins. Lettieri alleged that Harmon committed perjury and that Bonnano did not respond to his requests for access to additional Facebook chats that a victim allegedly had with him. He also asserted that a chat violated Federal Rule of Evidence 901, which addresses the authentication or identification of evidence.

The court had previously dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. It concluded that Rule 901 does not create a private right to sue, that the court could not review an evidentiary ruling in an ongoing criminal proceeding in another federal district court, and that any claim against Bonnano and Huggins under the judicially created Bivens remedy involved a new context that the Supreme Court has generally disfavored extending. The court also found that amendment would be futile.

Request for Reconsideration

Lettieri sought reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits a court to alter or amend a judgment in limited circumstances, including newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. He argued that the earlier dismissal was clearly erroneous.

Lettieri relied on Powell v. United States, which he said recognized a Bivens claim for fabrication of evidence. He also argued that the court should have allowed him to amend the complaint to assert claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2701, 47 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207, and 220, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected the reconsideration request. It found that the complaint did not allege fabrication of evidence. Instead, it alleged that Harmon committed perjury and that Bonnano did not follow up about giving Lettieri access to certain evidence. The court stated that an allegation of fabricated evidence would be a new claim that would have to be brought in a separate action.

The court also held that it was not erroneous to dismiss without allowing amendment. According to the court, the alleged perjury and failure to provide access to evidence did not state violations of the cited statutes or the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court further stated that any due-process claim was barred by the Heck doctrine, which generally prevents a plaintiff from recovering damages for conduct that would make a conviction or sentence invalid unless that conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise invalidated.

Disposition

The court DENIED the request for reconsideration. The case remains closed, and the order terminated Docket No. 13.