NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-2119 __________ MANUEL LAMPON-PAZ, Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; STATE OF NEW JERSEY ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-16-cv-09071) District Judge: Honorable Kevin McNulty ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 1, 2019 Before: JORDAN, BIBAS and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 1, 2019) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Manuel Lampon-Paz appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing his complaint. We will affirm. I. Lampon-Paz is a former federal air marshal who has filed a series of federal lawsuits seeking to hold the federal government and the State of New Jersey liable for a litany of seeming unrelated events alleged to have befallen him and his family, including his now former wife and his minor son. Those lawsuits have included his civil actions at D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 2-12-cv-04485 and 2-13-cv-05757. In the second of those suits, the defendants included the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and the State of New Jersey. Lampon-Paz alleged, inter alia, that defendants (using “electromagnetic waves, ultrasonic messaging, and brain mapping”) investigated him and revealed to other family members that his wife had an affair. He further alleged that the revelation caused “irrevocable harm to my marriage” and “caus[ed] me and my wife [to] separate and will divorce[.]” The District Court questioned whether Lamon-Paz’s claims were substantial enough to invoke its subject-matter jurisdiction, but it ultimately dismissed his complaint both as barred by res judicata by reason of his previous suit and for failure to state a claim. On appeal from that ruling, Lampon-Paz raised further allegations about his wife, including that the circumstances of their marriage constituted immigration fraud, that they were under investigation, and that “investigators had a sexual relationship with my wife,” thereby “caus[ing] the dissolution of my marriage.” (E.g., Appellant’s Br. 2 docketed Feb. 13, 2015, in C.A. No. 14-1501 at 7-8.) We declined to consider new claims raised for the first time on appeal, but we affirmed for both of the reasons that the District Court gave. See Lampon-Paz v. DHS, 612 F. App’x 73, 75-76 (3d Cir. 2015). About five months later, Lampon-Paz filed suit in the Southern District of California. He named as defendants the DOJ and an “unknown party,” and he again sought to hold the federal government liable for various events, including the involvement of a “Mr. O” with Lampon-Paz’s son. During that litigation, Lampon-Paz sought leave to amend to assert a claim regarding the “coercion of my ex-wife for sexual favors for the return of citizenship papers and non prosecution [which] was a forced breach of my marital vows . . . which led ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals