Lettieri v. Four in One
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-02898
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Lettieri v. Four in One, Judge Gilliam ordered David C. Lettieri to explain within 28 days why fee-free filing should not be denied under the three-strikes rule.
David C. Lettieri, whose requests to proceed without paying the filing fee were placed in question; Four in One is the defendant in the underlying complaint.
What happened
In Lettieri v. Four in One, David C. Lettieri filed a self-represented complaint alleging negligence and diversity jurisdiction based on allegedly misleading or incomplete information on a salad-dressing label. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court found that at least three of Lettieri’s earlier cases counted as dismissals under the federal three-strikes rule. That rule generally prevents a prisoner with three qualifying dismissals from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless the complaint alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that the salad-dressing allegations did not plausibly show such danger.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not yet deny the requests. He ordered Lettieri to explain within 28 days why they should not be denied under the three-strikes rule and warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to follow a court order.
The detailed version
- Lettieri v. Four in One · No. 4:24-cv-02898
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 19, 2024
Background
David C. Lettieri filed a self-represented complaint against Four in One alleging negligence and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. He also requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The complaint alleged that in 2024, while Lettieri was housed at Niagara County Jail, Four in One was negligent regarding salad dressing that allegedly had an improper health diet, no nutrition facts or net weight, and a misleading title. The complaint also cited several federal and New York statutory provisions.
Three-strikes rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the prisoner has brought three or more earlier federal actions while incarcerated or detained that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. An exception applies if the prisoner was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court identified at least three earlier cases involving Lettieri that it determined qualified as strikes. Those cases had been dismissed based on judicial or prosecutorial immunity, and the court concluded that, in those particular cases, the immunity defenses were apparent from the complaints and therefore supported dismissals for failure to state a claim. The court also noted that Lettieri had filed at least 128 civil actions in federal district courts since 2022 and had previously been denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in at least three cases.
Imminent-danger exception
The court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Lettieri faced imminent danger of serious physical injury on April 21, 2024, the date he signed the complaint. It stated that misleading or incomplete information on a salad-dressing label did not establish imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Order
The court ordered Lettieri to show cause within 28 days why his requests to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied under the three-strikes provision of § 1915. The order did not itself deny those requests. It warned that failure to comply with the order could result in notice and dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to follow a court order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.