David C. Lettieri v. Amazon Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) DAVID C. LETTIERI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) NO. 25-13024-MRG ) AMAZON INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER April 23, 2026 GUZMAN, D.J.

Pro se plaintiff David Lettieri, who is confined at FMC Devens, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 1, and a complaint, ECF 1-1. As set forth below, the Court will DENY the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this action without prejudice.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner bringing a non-habeas action generally cannot proceed in forma pauperis if he has, on three or more prior occasions, filed an action or appeal that was dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous, was malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Where a prisoner has “three strikes,” he may only proceed in forma pauperis if he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” with regard to the misconduct alleged in the complaint. Id.; see also Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[T]here must be a nexus between the imminent danger a three-strikes prisoner alleges to obtain IFP status[,] and the legal claims asserted in his complaint.”).

Prior to commencing this action on August 11, 2026, Lettieri had, while a prisoner, filed three or more appeals or non-habeas civil actions in federal courts that were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., Lettieri v. United States Dep’t of Justice, Nos. 24-248, 24-1304, 2025 WL 2122767 (2d Cir. Mar. 31, 2025); Lettieri v. Auricchio, No. 24-3166, 2025 WL 3633163 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2025); Lettieri v. Broome Cnty. Humane Soc’y, No. 24-3169, 2025 WL 3654243 (2d. Cir. Mar. 26, 2025); Lettieri v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 24-1311, 2025 WL 1420547 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2025); Lettieri v. Broome Cnty. Humane Soc’y, No. 23-8098, 2025 WL 1745141 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2025); Lettieri v. Suffolk Cnty. Police, No. 24-1804, 2024 WL 5500583 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 2024); Lettieri v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. 24-1500, 2024 WL 5485742 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 2024); Lettieri v. United States Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of New York, No. 24-1533, 2024 WL 5680035 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 2024); Lettieri v. Broome Cnty. Humane Soc’y, No. 24-528, 2024 WL 5480747 (2d Cir. Nov.

22, 2024); Lettieri v. Daniels, No. 23-00867, ECF No. 3 (W.D.N.Y Oct. 16, 2023); Lettieri v. Reynolds, No. 23-00925, ECF No. 4 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2023); Lettieri v. Ne. Ohio Corr. Ctr., No. 23-01690, ECF No. 5 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 22, 2023); Lettieri v. Fed. Marshals, No. 23-01872, ECF No. 6 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2023); Lettieri v. New York State Troopers, No. 23-02077, ECF No. 4 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 21, 2023); Lettieri v. Northeast Ohio Corr. Ctr., No. 23-02172, ECF No. (N.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2023). Prior to the commencement of this action, this Court had already determined that plaintiff is a “three strikes” litigant. See, e.g., Lettieri v. Santander Bank N.A., No. 24-10361-AK, ECF No. 4 (D. Mass. Mar. 15, 2024), and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has come to the same conclusion, see Lettieri v. Santander Bank N.A., No. 24-1781, 2025 WL 2823585, at *1 (1st Cir. June 18, 2025) (dismissing appeal because plaintiff had “not paid the appellate filing fee in full and ha[d] not shown why the appeal should be permitted to proceed without payment of the full filing fee despite his ‘three-strikes’ status”).

Thus, Lettieri cannot proceed without prepayment of the $405 filing fee unless he plausibly pleads in his complaint that the defendants’ alleged misconduct places him in imminent danger of serious physical injury. He has made no such showing. In his complaint—which is not entirely legible—he alleges primarily that FMC Devens stole a book he had purchased as punishment for phone infraction. He also alleges that prison officials threatened him with excessive force and transfer to a different facility, but notably Lettieri only seeks damages against these defendants. In addition, he brings a claim for abuse of process against a judge who presided in the criminal prosecution against him in the Western District of New York.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

So Ordered.

/s/ Margaret R. Guzman MARGARET R. GUZMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 23, 2026