Lucio Celli v. Trump, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-02031
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : LUCIO CELLI, : : Petitioner, : : -v- : 25 Civ. 2031 (JPC) : TRUMP, et al., : ORDER : Respondents. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Petitioner Lucio Celli brings this action seeking a writ of mandamus. In an Order dated May 28, 2025, the Court ordered Celli to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case sua sponte (1) for the reasons set forth in the May 27, 2025 Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger in Celli v. New York City, No. 24 Civ. 9743 (JPC) (RWL), Dkt. 157 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2025), and/or (2) as a frivolous matter that lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, see, e.g., Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“[D]istrict courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee, just as the Court of Appeals may dismiss frivolous matters in like circumstances.”); Houston v. Manheim-N.Y., 475 F. App’x 776, 779-80 (2d Cir. 2012). Dkt. 22 (“May 28, 2025 Order”). The Court ordered Celli to title his submission “Response to Order to Show Cause,” limit it to fifteen pages in length, and submit it through the Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit by June 10, 2025. Id. at 1. The docket for this case does not reflect any response to the Court’s order to show cause. Celli did respond, however, on approximately June 25, 2025, to a similar order that the Court issued in Celli v. New York City, No. 24 Civ. 9743 (JPC) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 195 (Order to Show Cause dated June 3, 2025). See id., Dkt. 257 (Celli’s Response to Order to Show Cause received by the Pro Se Intake Unit on June 25, 2025). In light of Celli’s pro se status, the Court stated that it would consider that response when deciding whether to dismiss this case on the grounds identified in the May 28, 2025 Order. Dkt. 49 (“July 2, 2025 Order”) at 1 n.1. Celli has repeatedly ignored warnings that his abuse of the Court’s processes could lead to dismissal. First, the May 28, 2025 Order referred Celli to Judge Lehrburger’s Report and Recommendation in Celli v. New York City, No. 24 Civ. 9743 (JPC) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 157 (May 27, 2025), which recommended dismissal due to, inter alia, Celli’s repeated refusal to comply with judicial orders, id. at 21-25. May 28, 2025 Order at 1. A little more than one month later, on July 2, 2025, the Court in this case expressly warned Celli after he filed more than thirty

letters and motions in fewer than four weeks, see Dkts. 23-48, 53-55, 58-59, that “making frivolous submissions in this case while [Celli’s] objections and response to the Order to Show Cause in No. 24 Civ. 9743 are under submission may result in sanctions, including dismissal of this case.” July 2, 2025 Order. Celli has defied that Order dozens of times by submitting more than fifty-five frivolous filings since July 9, 2025, mostly styled as letters and motions. Dkts. 60, 62-91, 93-119. In light of Celli’s conduct in this case, including his repeated violations of the Court’s July 2, 2025 Order, and his failure to show cause why dismissal is improper, this case is dismissed sua sponte with prejudice for the reasons set forth in Judge Lehrburger’s Report and Recommendation in Celli v. New York City, No. 24 Civ. 9743 (JPC) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 157 (May 27, 2025) at 21-25, and in the Court’s Opinion of December 29, 2025, Celli v. New York City, No. 24 Civ. 9743

(JPC) (RWL), 2025 WL 3751802 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2025), adopting Judge Lehrburger’s recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice for Celli’s repeated failure to comply with judicial orders. That Opinion discussed Celli’s repeated violations of judicial orders in Celli v. New York City, No. 24 Civ. 9743 (JPC) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.). See id. at *5-6. As noted above, Celli’s violations of court orders have persisted in this case. He also was put on notice in the May 28, 2025 Order and the July 2, 2025 Order that dismissal may occur. Celli’s conduct has caused prejudice to Respondents United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”) and the New York City Department of Education (the two Respondents that have appeared), which have made filings in this case, Dkts. 16, 18, 20, 27, and likely have dedicated substantial resources in striving to monitor the docket and make sense of Celli’s voluminous, incoherent, and defiant filings in this and other actions. See, e.g., Celli v. Katzman, No. 22 Civ. 2354 (CS) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 1 (calling UFT “Cash Cow Milking Leeches” in the complaint’s caption); Celli v. New York City, No. 24 Civ. 9743 (JPC) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.). Celli has been given full opportunity to be heard in this action (as well as other actions) and was specifically put on notice of the potential grounds for dismissal, see May 28, 2025 Order at 1; July 2, 2025 Order at 1, yet responded by further congesting the court’s docket with largely vexatious and incoherent filings thus consuming intolerable amounts of judicial resources. Finally, as in Celli v. New York City, No. 24 Civ. 9743 (JPC) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.), any sanction short of dismissal of this action with prejudice would be futile given the history of Celli’s conduct. 2025 WL 3751802, at *8. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment for Respondents and to close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 30, 2025 Vibe his é 7B New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge