Lettieri v. U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-05032
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lettieri v. U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, Judge Swain denied Lettieri’s motions to change or obtain relief from the judgment.
David C. Lettieri’s request to change or obtain relief from the earlier judgment was denied, leaving the prior dismissal in place. The court also denied permission to appeal this order without paying filing fees.
What happened
In David C. Lettieri v. U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, the court had previously dismissed Lettieri’s complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. Lettieri, who represented himself, then asked the court to change or vacate that judgment while also appealing it.
The court treated Lettieri’s filing as requests under two federal rules for changing a judgment or obtaining relief from one. It found that he had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or facts, identified any qualifying basis for relief, or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for relief from the judgment, directed the Clerk to terminate all motions, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lettieri v. U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement · No. 1:24-cv-05032
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 10, 2025
Background
Lettieri filed the action without a lawyer. On November 4, 2024, the court dismissed his complaint under the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and judgment was entered on November 8, 2024. On December 9, 2024, Lettieri filed a notice of appeal and a separate document titled “Notice of Appeal/Vacate Judgment.”
The court interpreted the second filing as both a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b). The opinion also states that, on March 31, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted that Lettieri could not file additional appeals there without first obtaining permission and denied his motion to appeal the judgment because it did not depart from his prior pattern of filings that the appellate court characterized as vexatious.
Rule 59(e) motion
To obtain relief under Rule 59(e), a party must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that Lettieri had not made that showing and denied his Rule 59(e) motion.
Rule 60(b) motion
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that Lettieri had not shown that any of the first five categories applied, and denied relief under those categories.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which covers other reasons justifying relief. It found that Lettieri had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under that provision.
Disposition
The court denied Lettieri’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions in the action. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.