David Lettieri v. Keefe Group, et al
| David Lettieri |
| Keefe Group, Bureau of Prisons, Federal Medical Center, Devens, B. Cinnutu, D. English and S. Gonduluz |
| 26-1534 |
| March 25, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Prisoner - Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 20, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MOTION for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis w/attached affidavit, filed by Party David Lettieri (originally filed in appeal case no. 26-1311 on 04/17/2026), w/service 05/20/2026. [5642341] [26-1534] (CJO) [Entered: 05/20/2026 02:58 PM] |
| CLERK ORDER: A response to the courts April 27, 2026, order to show cause has been received. Appellant asserts he previously filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Upon review, Appellant has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his pending case no. 26-1311. Accordingly, Appellants April 17, 2026, motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal filed in case no. 26-1311, will also be filed in this appeal, case no. 26-1534. [5642323] [26-1534] (CJO) [Entered: 05/20/2026 02:48 PM] |
| RESPONSE to show cause order [ # 5633179-2 ], filed by Appellant David Lettieri, w/service 05/19/2026. [5641637] [26-1534] (CJO) [Entered: 05/19/2026 12:26 PM] |
| CLERK ORDER: APPELLANT has failed to pay to the Clerk of the District Court the requisite docketing fees. APPELLANT is directed to show cause within 14 days why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Response of David Lettieri due 05/11/2026. [5633179] [26-1534] (CJO) [Entered: 04/27/2026 03:56 PM] |
| RESPONSE to clerk order pay full filing fee [ # 5621802-2 ], filed by Party David Lettieri, w/service 04/17/2026. [5630095] [26-1534] (CJO) [Entered: 04/17/2026 11:41 AM] |
| Prisoner case docketed. [5621785] [26-1534] (CJO) [Entered: 03/25/2026 09:29 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, docket entries, and Order of Dismissal 02/18/2026. [5621795] [26-1534] (CJO) [Entered: 03/25/2026 09:36 AM] |
| CLERK ORDER:The district Court has determined that Appellant has three strikes under 28 U.S.C Section 1915(g). Accordingly, Appellant may not proceed in this appeal without first paying the full appellate docketing fee. Appellant is directed to either 1) pay to the district court the appellate docketing fee of $605, or 2) to file a pleading in this court explaining why Appellant is eligible under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g) to proceed without pre-payment of the fee, and to submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. If appellant fails to either pay the fee or respond to this order with the required pleading and motion within 30 days of the date of this order, the appeal will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Compliance is due 04/24/2026. [5621802] [26-1534] (CJO) [Entered: 03/25/2026 09:40 AM] |
| CLERK ORDER: If the original file of the United States District Court is available for review in electronic format, the court will rely on the electronic version of the record in its review. The appendices required by Eighth Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. In accordance with Eighth Circuit Local Rule 30A(a)(2), the Clerk of the United States District Court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format through PACER, including any documents maintained in paper format or filed under seal, exhibits, administrative records and state court files. These documents should be submitted within 10 days. [5621803] [26-1534] (CJO) [Entered: 03/25/2026 09:41 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
