# LETTIERI > District Court, D. New Jersey · June 3, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365268 ## Case - **Full name:** David C. Lettieri v. Brown and Connery LLP, et al. - **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey - **Decided:** June 3, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365268 ## Opinion text IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE DAVID C. LETTIERI, Plaintiff Civil No. 25-18965 (RMB-SAK) v. BROWN AND CONNERY LLP, et al., MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendants THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff David C. Lettieri’s Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) of this Court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (“IFP application”) based on the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Dkt. No. 4 (“Motion for Reconsideration”) For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff contends the Court should have granted his IFP application because he alleged he was in imminent danger of being stabbed. Motion for Reconsideration at 2. Among his many claims against approximately twenty defendants, Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint: On March 27, 2025, the defendants D. English, S. Gonzalez, and B. Cinnatu had the plaintiff pulled from the education building to wait for an hour to be threaten[ed] if continue to do grievances the plaintiff would be transfer[red] to a more 1 dangerous facility to be stabbed in which d[ue] to a para[lyzed] vocal cord can’t yell. Thus would die. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 2-3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Third Circuit has determined, as a matter of statutory construction, that the existence of an “imminent danger” is to be assessed at the time the Complaint is filed. Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s allegation that defendants threatened to transfer him to a more dangerous facility where he might be stabbed fails to state an “imminent” danger because Plaintiff’s transfer was not imminent based on a threat alone, and the possibility of Plaintiff being stabbed at another facility was very remote at the time his Complaint was filed. Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration of the order denying is IFP application, Dkt. No. 3, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).1 Accordingly, 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides grounds for relief from an Order: On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 2 IT IS on this 3rd day of June 2026, ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this matter solely for entry of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. No. 4, is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE this action; and it is further ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to reopen this matter, he shall notify the Court in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Order and shall include (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; Or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 3 payment of the full civil filing fee; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB Chief United States District Judge 4 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365268. Public record. Not legal advice.