USVI Public Records

Document text

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║ IN RE RICHARD H. LAMBERTSEN, ║ ║ Petitioner ║ 1:25-cv-00014-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. 4. Mr. Lambertsen timely filed a response. Dkt. No. 8. 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 18, 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 Andrea Young, Mayor of West Melbourne, Florida. Specifically, he asked the Court to direct Mayor Young to immediately respond to Petitioner’s inquiry of 12:55:14 PM GMT-4, 7 September 2024 to Mr. Greg Vesta, Chief of the West Melbourne Police Department, as 1) elaborated at both 01:18:30 PM GMT-4 and 01:22:52 PM GMT-4 on 7 September 2024, 2) twice repeated on 9 September 2024, 3) thrice amplified on 10-11 September 2024, and 4) lastly escalated on 13 September 2024. Case: 1:25-cv-00014-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 1 of 6 In re Lambertsen 1:25-cv-00014-WAL-EAH Report & Recommendation Id. at 1. These inquiries were apparently in reference to the failure of the West Melbourne police to apprehend the individuals who took Mr. Lambertsen’s research journal from his then-home in West Melbourne, Florida in July 2022. Id. at 3. 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 has been engaged in a number of projects, including a nonviolent anti-terrorism initiative. He stated that his work has progressed to the point where he needed to expose the failure of the West Melbourne Police to apprehend the individuals principally responsible for the theft of his research journal from his home. Id. He has “standing” because the failure of the Mayor to respond to his September 13, 2024 inquiry “reduces the probability that his research journal will be returned to him.” Id. Mr. Lambertsen added that the writ should issue because a war was raging between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and exposing the failure of the West Melbourne Police to apprehend the individuals responsible for that theft 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. 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. The Court then issued the Order to Show Cause, observing that it was a plaintiff’s burden to establish federal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 4 at 2. Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § Case: 1:25-cv-00014-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 2 of 6 In re Lambertsen 1:25-cv-00014-WAL-EAH Report & Recommendation 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 direct the Mayor of West Melbourne, Florida to respond to Mr. Lambertsen’s September 2024 inquiries to the City’s Chief of Police, and it was well-established that a federal court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to state and municipal 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 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. 8. 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. Case: 1:25-cv-00014-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 3 of 6 In re Lambertsen 1:25-cv-00014-WAL-EAH Report & Recommendation Mr. Lambertsen’s response then referred to a number of letters to and from various individuals such as Presidents Trump, Obama, and Biden, and King Charles III of the United Kingdom, that had no apparent relation to the instant Petition but, in his view, served to unequivocally establish subject matter jurisdiction Id. at 2-5. For example, he refers 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 4-5. He interspersed this list of letters and comments with statements that the West Melbourne, Florida police department had been in receipt of his May 2020 letter to President Trump, that President Trump was responsible for the theft of his research journal, and that Mayor Young was probably acting as a secret agent serving the President of the United States, which also served to establish federal jurisdiction. Id. at 3, 5. Consequently, it would be “inappropriate—and probably criminal—to recommend to the District Judge that Petitioner’s petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 6. 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. 8-1 to 8-14. 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. Mr. Lambertsen made points concerning the specific wording of the Case: 1:25-cv-00014-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 4 of 6 In re Lambertsen 1:25-cv-00014-WAL-EAH Report & Recommendation text of 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and that the statute should be inclusive rather than exclusive. He also provided a list of letters to and from various officials from 2010 to 2025 asserting that they established the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his Petition, and shared 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. Dkt. No. 8. But all of these assertions do not speak to, much less challenge, the well-established case law included in the Order to Show Cause holding that a federal court lacks the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to state and municipal 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); see also In re Whiteford, No. 13-cv-1351, 2013 WL 979413, at *1 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2013) (federal court may not exercise mandamus jurisdiction over municipal matters). Mr. Lambertsen’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus asks the Court to direct Andrea Young, Mayor of West Melbourne, Florida, to promptly respond to his September 2024 inquiries concerning the theft of his research journal. However, because the Petition asks the Court to direct a municipal official to take some action, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition. Id. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, this Court RECOMMENDS that Mr. Lambertsen’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Case: 1:25-cv-00014-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 5 of 6 In re Lambertsen 1:25-cv-00014-WAL-EAH Report & Recommendation 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 Petitioner 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-00014-RAM-EAH Document #: 14 Filed: 04/29/25 Page 6 of 6