Celli v. Lehrburger
1:25-cv-04505
S.D.N.Y.Sep 4, 2025Background:
- Plaintiff Lucio Celli filed suit challenging his separation from the New York State Department of Education (DOE); the complaint was dismissed and Celli was ordered to show cause why a filing ban should not be imposed.
- Since that order, Celli submitted nearly fifty motions/letters and sent numerous inflammatory emails to judges, court staff, and attorneys.
- Celli has a documented history of vexatious, duplicative, and frivolous litigation related to his DOE separation and a prior criminal conviction for threatening federal judges; multiple judges have previously warned him his claims lacked merit.
- Many of Celli’s filings include outlandish accusations against judges (e.g., alleging conspiracies or being paid to cover up crimes).
- The court found Celli unrepresented (pro se) but determined prior warnings remove special leniency; lesser sanctions proved ineffective given his continued conduct and history of ignoring court orders.
- The court barred Celli from filing any new civil action in the Southern District concerning his DOE separation or its consequences without prior leave of court, prescribed the leave procedure, warned of dismissal for noncompliance, denied IFP for appeal, and warned of further sanctions.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to impose a filing ban under the court's inherent power/28 U.S.C. §1651 | Celli asserts his claims about DOE separation merit review and disputes that he was terminated (says he is retired) | Celli’s filings are vexatious, duplicative, frivolous, and burden the court; prior warnings have been ignored | Ban is appropriate; Celli barred from filing DOE-related suits without leave |
| Scope of the ban (does it cover retirement vs. termination) | Celli: he is retired, not terminated | Court: substance matters; ban should cover separation and its consequences irrespective of label | Ban covers Celli’s separation from DOE and consequences however that occurred |
| Procedure for seeking permission to file and effect of noncompliance | Celli seeks to file new complaints directly | Court requires motion for leave to file to Pro Se Intake Unit, attaching proposed complaint and this order; filings without leave will be dismissed | Motion-for-leave requirement imposed; noncompliant filings will be dismissed |
| Appealability/IFP and further sanctions | Celli may seek IFP to appeal | Court: given frivolousness, appeal would not be in good faith; continued filings warrant monetary or broader filing sanctions | Denied IFP for appeal; warned of additional sanctions if frivolous submissions continue |
Key Cases Cited
- Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (factors for imposing filing restrictions)
- In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984) (courts’ power to enjoin vexatious litigation)
- Sledge v. Kooi, 564 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2009) (pro se status does not excuse frivolous conduct once warned)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good-faith standard for in forma pauperis appeals)