Lambros v United States of America et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) 35 is DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 11/18/2020. (GRR)
CASE 0:19-cv-01870-MJD-ECW Doc. 37 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil File No. 19‐1870 (MJD/ECW)
John Gregory Lambros, Pro Se.
Ana H. Voss, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e). [Doc. No. 35]
Plaintiff was extradited from Brazil to the United States in 1992 in
connection with cocaine‐related charges. (Comp. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff was also charged
with travel in interstate commerce in carrying out illegal activity and had an
outstanding warrant from 1989, but he was not extradited on those charges. (Id.)
A jury found Plaintiff guilty of four cocaine‐related offenses in 1993 and was
CASE 0:19-cv-01870-MJD-ECW Doc. 37 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 3
ultimately sentenced to 360 months in prison. See United States v. Lambros, 124
F.3d 209, 1997 WL 538013 (8th Cir. Sep. 2, 1997).
On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action in the United States District
Court, District of Columbia. The action was thereafter transferred to the District
of Minnesota. (Doc. No. 17 (Order dated June 24, 2019)). Upon transfer, the
government moved to dismiss for lack of subject‐matter jurisdiction and failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion was referred to
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright, who recommended the motion be
granted and the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. No. 31 (R&R at
20).) The Court approved the Report and Recommendation and granted the
government’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 33.)
“Rule 59(e) motions serve a limited function of ‘correcting manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Innovative Home
Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.–O.T. Associates of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286
(8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). This type of motion “cannot” be used to
“introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which
could have been offered” prior to issuance of the judgment it seeks amend. Id.
CASE 0:19-cv-01870-MJD-ECW Doc. 37 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 3
Plaintiff raises two main arguments in his motion. First, Plaintiff asserts
that the government is not entitled to absolute immunity because it acted in
violation of the extradition treaty in force between Brazil and the United States
when it violated the conditions of the extradition by charging him with a crime,
and placing a detainer on him, for which he was not extradited. Second, Plaintiff
asserts that the Bureau of Prisons mail policies deprived him of the capacity to
conform to the service of process requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c).
These arguments were previously raised in his objections to the Report
and Recommendation. Plaintiff does not cite to an intervening change in the law
or otherwise demonstrate that the Court’s previous order was based on a
manifest error of law or fact. Nor does he cite to newly discovered evidence.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is
entitled to relief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) [Doc. No. 35] is
Date: November 18, 2020
s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?