Full Opinion

HLD-029 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 26-2813 ___________ IN RE: DAVID LETTIERI, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1:25-cv-11932) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 3, 2026 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and RESTREPO Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 10, 2026) _________ OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM David Lettieri seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to sever and grant two separate petitions for writs under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. We will deny his request. Lettieri currently is serving a twenty-year prison sentence at the Federal Medical Center (FMC) in Devens, Massachusetts, 1 after a jury in the United States District Court * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 The Federal Bureau of Prisons operates FMC Devens as an administrative for the Western District of New York found him guilty in 2023 of attempting to persuade, induce, or entice a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). See United States v. Lettieri, C.A. No. 24-1594, 2026 WL 143328 (2d Cir. Jan. 20, 2026). Shortly before his sentencing in 2024, he filed an unrelated complaint against TD Bank in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. After more than two years of litigation, a legal representative of Lettieri’s, acting pursuant to a power of attorney, agreed to dismiss the case by joint stipulation. Lettieri appealed the dismissal pro se, but his appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. See Lettieri v. TD Bank, C.A. No. 26-2221 (3d Cir. June 10, 2026) (clerk order). In June 2025, while his TD Bank lawsuit was ongoing, Lettieri filed in the New Jersey District Court a petition for relief pursuant to the All Writs Act in which he alleged that someone at FMC Devens had interfered with a specific piece of legal mail relating to the civil matter and thereby denied his access to the courts. As relief, Lettieri asked that his “illegal” prison sentence and term of supervised release be reduced by 30 days and one year, respectively. He lodged similar allegations with regard to a different piece of mail in another filing two months later, which the Clerk of Court docketed as an amended petition. Lettieri then filed a letter in which he asked to have the two filings severed into separate dockets because the events alleged had occurred on different dates. No action was taken for nearly a year. In July 2026, Lettieri filed the instant mandamus petition in hopes of securing an order directing the District Court to grant both his severance request facility for male inmates who require specialized or long-term medical or mental health care. 2 and the underlying petitions for relief. The District Court ultimately dismissed his request as frivolous and with prejudice on August 12, 2026. A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted only in “extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Petitioners must show that they have no other adequate means to obtain the relief desired, that they have a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and that the writ would be appropriate under the circumstances. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992); see also Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam). Lettieri has not met his exacting burden. His petition is moot to the extent it seeks a ruling on his request for severance because the District Court has entered an opinion and order dismissing his underlying request for relief as frivolous. See ECF Docs. 4, 5; Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”). Insofar as Lettieri believes the District Court erred in doing so, we note that mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). If he wishes to challenge the dismissal, his remedy is to file an appeal to this Court, which he has until Tuesday, October 13, 2026, to do. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(ii) (providing that a notice of appeal in a civil case against a United States agency, such as FMC Devens, 3 “may be filed by any party within 60 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C) (explaining that if a deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, “the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday”). We will therefore deny Lettieri’s petition for a writ of mandamus. 4