USVI Public Records

Document text

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║ IN RE RICHARD H. LAMBERTSEN, ║ ║ Petitioner ║ 1:25-cv-00009-WAL-EAH ║ ________________________________________________ ║ TO: Richard H. Lambertsen, Pro Se REPORT & RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the issuance of an Order to Show Cause on March 20, 2025 that directed Petitioner Richard H. Lambertsen to show cause in a written submission by April 3, 2025 why this Court should not recommend to the District Judge that his petition for a writ of mandamus be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 5. Mr. Lambertsen timely filed a response. Dkt. No. 9. For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that the District Judge dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandamus for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. BACKGROUND On February 7, 2025, Mr. Lambertsen, appearing pro se and fee paid, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Dkt. No. 1. In his Petition, Mr. Lambertsen sought relief from Albert Bryan, Jr., Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Specifically, he asked the Court to “direct the Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands to promptly decide on Petitioner’s application of 21 January 2025 for a permit to carry a firearm for self-defense.” Id. at 2. Mr. Lambertsen explained that he was a veterinarian, consultant, investor and philanthropist, and was a “defacto agent of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.” Id. He had been engaged in a number of projects, including a nonviolent anti-terrorism initiative. It became clear to him Case: 1:25-cv-00009-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 1 of 5 In re Lambertsen 1:25-cv-00009-WAL-EAH Report & Recommendation that he had a need for personal security, and he wanted to carry a firearm. Id. He added that the Court should issue the writ because “a war is at present raging between the Russian Federation and the sovereign nation of Ukraine,” and his application for a firearm permit “is a key part of his ongoing work to get Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, prosecuted by his own government for ordering a war of aggression against Ukraine.” Id. at 3. He concluded that failure of the Court to issue the writ would constitute obstruction of justice. Id. The District Judge referred all pending and future dispositive matters in this action to the undersigned for a Report & Recommendation. Dkt. No. 3. This Court then issued the Order to Show Cause, observing that it was a plaintiff’s burden to establish federal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 5 at 2. Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), a district court had jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus only “in aid of” its jurisdiction and, before entertaining such a petition, the Court was required to “identify a jurisdiction that the issuance of the writ might assist.” Id. (quoting United States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 894 (3d Cir. 1981)). But because the petition asked the Court to order the Governor of the Virgin Islands to promptly decide on Mr. Lambertsen’s application for a gun permit, and it was well-established that a federal court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to state officials, the Court appeared to lack jurisdiction over Mr. Lambertsen’s petition. Id. at 2-3. The Order to Show Cause provided Mr. Lambertsen notice and an opportunity to be heard on the legal viability of his Petition and ordered him to show cause Case: 1:25-cv-00009-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 2 of 5 In re Lambertsen 1:25-cv-00009-WAL-EAH Report & Recommendation by written submission why the Court should not recommend to the District Judge that his Petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 3. On March 27, 2025, Mr. Lambertsen responded to the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 9. He asserted that 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) “does not indicate that writs of mandamus may be issued by a district court only in aid of its jurisdiction, as claimed in the Order to Show Cause,” because the statute states that a district court “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” Id. at 2. Thus, the letter and spirit of § 1651(a) favored inclusiveness, not exclusiveness, when there was a compelling reason. Id. The Court’s interpretation of the statute appeared to be a “self-serving interpretation of sometimes overworked members of the U.S. federal judiciary.” Id. Mr. Lambertsen’s response then referred to events and persons that had no apparent relation to the instant Petition. Id. at 3-5. For example, he referred to “evident mea culpas” by President Donald Trump in February and March 2025 relating to the war in Ukraine and to pardons by President Biden. Id. at 3-4. He then addressed the subject matter of the instant petition, asserting that Governor Bryan’s failure to decide on his application for a firearm permit left him little choice but to hire expensive bodyguard services. He viewed the Governor’s failure to decide on his permit application as an attempt to compromise his credibility as a witness against President Trump and to obstruct justice. Id. at 5. Mr. Lambertsen also surmised that Gov. Bryan was acting as a secret agent of President Trump, as was the undersigned. Consequently, it would be “inappropriate—and probably criminal— Case: 1:25-cv-00009-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 3 of 5 In re Lambertsen 1:25-cv-00009-WAL-EAH Report & Recommendation to recommend to the District Judge that Petitioner’s petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. Mr. Lambertsen attached fourteen exhibits to his response, which included letters he had written to various United States Presidents over the years, communications to officials from West Melbourne, Fla., letters to King Charles III and the President and Ambassador of India to the United States, and some responses. Dkt. Nos. 9-1 to 9-14. DISCUSSION Most of the statements and arguments Mr. Lambertsen offered in his Response do not address the issue of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his petition, as set out in the Order to Show Cause. The points that he does make—concerning the specific wording of the text of 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), whether the statute should be inclusive rather than exclusive, and his view that it would be inappropriate, if not criminal, for this Court to recommend to the District Judge that his petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction—do not speak to, much less challenge, the well-established case law included in the Order to Show Cause. Those cases hold that a federal court lacks the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to state officials, and that such a request “lies outside the bounds of . . . mandamus jurisdiction as a federal court.” In re Brown, 382 F. App’x 150, 150 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). This holding was recently reaffirmed by the Third Circuit in Martinez v. Colville, No. 24-1935, 2024 WL 4234628, at * 2 n.4 (3d Cir. 2024) (per curiam). Mr. Lambertsen’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus asks the Court to direct Albert Bryan, Jr., Governor of the Virgin Islands, to promptly decide on Petitioner’s application for Case: 1:25-cv-00009-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 4 of 5 In re Lambertsen 1:25-cv-00009-WAL-EAH Report & Recommendation a firearm permit. However, because the Petition asks the Court to direct a state official to take some action, the Court lacks subject atter jurisdiction over the Petition. In re Brown, 382 F. App’x at 150. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, this Court RECOMMENDS that Mr. Lambertsen’s Petition be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis of such objection.” LRCi 72.3. Failure to file objections within the specified time shall bar the aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned District Court Judge. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the pro se Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested. ENTER: Dated: April 29, 2025 /s/ Emile A. Henderson III EMILE A. HENDERSON III U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:25-cv-00009-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 5 of 5