Lettieri v. Facebook

Background

David C. Lettieri filed a complaint against Facebook, Alisa Bulete, Randall Garver, Facebook employee Tyler Harmon, and Western District of New York Assistant United States Attorneys Paul E. Bonnano and Maeve Eileen Huggins. The complaint alleges negligence and invokes federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. It alleges that, on June 13, 2023, the defendants claimed that a photograph showed Alisa Bulete in a place where she was not, allegedly violating 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The opinion does not decide whether those allegations are legally or factually sufficient.

Lettieri asked to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee at the start of the case. The court considered the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes rule, which generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee after at least three earlier federal cases were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, unless the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the new complaint was filed.

Prior dismissals and three-strikes finding

The court found that at least three of Lettieri's earlier cases qualified as strikes. It determined that one earlier case was dismissed because judicial immunity barred the claim against a court clerk's office employee, another was dismissed because absolute prosecutorial immunity barred claims against Assistant United States Attorney Maeve Huggins, and a third was dismissed because absolute judicial immunity barred claims against Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo. The court treated these as strikes for failure to state a claim because the immunity defenses were apparent from the complaints themselves. The court also noted that Lettieri had filed at least 128 civil actions in federal district courts since 2022 and had been subject to pre-filing orders in at least two districts, but those facts were not the basis for the present order's immediate disposition.

The court stated that Lettieri had not alleged, and had not demonstrated, that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury from the defendants on January 22, 2024, the date he signed the complaint. It explained that the danger must exist when the complaint is filed and must be connected to the legal violations alleged in the complaint.

Order

The court issued an order to show cause rather than immediately denying the request to proceed without paying the filing fee. It ordered Lettieri to show cause within 28 days why his request should not be denied under the three-strikes rule. The order explains that he may still pursue his claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset. It further states that failure to respond as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. therefore issued a procedural order requiring a response; the opinion did not reach the merits of Lettieri's negligence or other allegations and did not yet deny the request to proceed without paying the filing fee.