Lettieri v. Abdal
| David C Lettieri |
| N Abdal |
| 1:2025cv13433 |
| November 18, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Richard G Stearns |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 4, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Copy re 4 Order and #5 Order Dismissing Case mailed to David C Lettieri on 2/4/2026. (JAM) |
| Filing 5 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (JAM) |
| Filing 4 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered - The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #2 is DENIED with prejudice and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Pro se plaintiff David Lettieri is a "three strikes" litigant (meaning, while incarcerated, he has filed three or more cases dismissed for as malicious or frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted) and therefore cannot proceed without prepayment of the $405 filing fee unless he shows that he is in "imminent danger of serious physical injury" with regard to the alleged misconduct. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). This action concerns a December 7, 2024 disciplinary report that Lettieri failed to "stand count." Lettieri alleges that the report was false, and, although the complaint is not entirely clear, Lettieri seems to allege that after a disciplinary hearing, the matter was dismissed in Lettieri's favor. Nothing in the complaint suggests that the defendant's issuance of an allegedly false disciplinary report in November 2024 currently places Lettieri in imminent danger of serious physical injury, notwithstanding his generalized reference to subsequent unspecified false reports which led to disciplinary segregation where he did not receive adequate medical care. The court certifies that, because of Lettieri's continued practice of filing non-habeas actions without paying the filing fee or setting forth a non-frivolous basis why the "three strikes" rule does not bar him from proceeding in forma pauperis, any appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3).(MZ) |
| Filing 3 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges. (SP) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by David C Lettieri.(LBO) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against N Abdal, filed by David C Lettieri. (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Envelope)(LBO) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Lettieri v. Abdal | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: David C Lettieri | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: N Abdal | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
