*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicataand collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 13 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v. J.W. BOOKER; U.S. BOARD OF PAROLE, U.S. Parole Commission, Respondents-Appellees. No. 00-3118 (D. Kan.) (D.Ct. No. 98-CV-3148-RDR)

____________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY , KELLY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Appellant John Gregory Lambros, a federal inmate ap pearing pro se , appeals the district court’s decision on his motion to alter and amend the judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habe as corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm.
Mr. Lambros initiated this action by filing a § 224 1 petition, in which he alleged government officials lacked jurisdiction orauthority to extradite him from Brazil on a parole violation warrant. The districtcourt dismissed the petition, concluding Mr. Lambros unsuccessfully raised the same issue concerning the validity of his extradition in an earlier § 2241 pe tition, which the district court denied.
Following the district court’s order denying his § 2241 petition, Mr. Lambros filed a motion to alter or amend the order on grounds his petition did not constitute a successive petition because the earlie r habeas action centered on whether he could appeal the parole commission’s dec ision, and not on setting aside the parole violation warrant. In ruling on M r. Lambros’ motion, the district court determined the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine pro hibited consideration of Mr. Lambros’ extradition claim because he failed to rai se it, and therefore, defaulted it, in the first federal habeas proceeding. As a r esult, the district court held that1 Section 2244(a) is a gatekeeping provision which states:

No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a -3- “[t]o the extent [Mr. Lambros’] distinction between his two habeas actions points more to dismissal of the instant petition as an abu se of the writ rather than as a successive petition, dismissal of the petition rema ins appropriate.” The district court then granted Mr. Lambros’ motion to alter and amend the judgment “to include discussion of the dismissal of the petition as an abuse of the writ, [and] no other modification to the court’s decision to di smiss the petition is warranted.” In other words, the district court effectively dism issed Mr. Lambros’ § 2241 petition for abuse of writ, rather than for filing a successive writ.
Mr. Lambros now appeals the district court’s decisi on concerning its disposition of his motion, and in essence, is appea ling the court’s decision denying his second § 2241 petition as an abusive wr it under § 2244(a). We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions in dismissi ng a § 2241 habeas petition. Patterson v. Knowles , 162 F.3d 574, 575 (10th Cir. 1998). We have held a second or subsequent § 2241 petition wh ich raises a new claim, which could have been raised in an earlier petition, shou ld be dismissed as abusive under § 2244(a), absent a showing of either cause a nd prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. George v. Perrill , 62 F.3d 333, 334-35 (10th Cir. 1995). 1writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a

judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of a habeas corpus, except as provided in section 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). While § 2244(a) does not mention the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine, the Supreme Court has determined § 2244(a) applies to abusive writs, including those filed under § 2241. See George , 62 F.3d at 334-35.

2Mr. Lambros asserts his omission in failing to raise the extradition issue resulted from his “carelessness due to [a lack of legal] education and brain control implants placed within him in Brazil that still control him.” In support, Mr. Lambros fancifully theorizes that agents of the United States and Brazilian governments “implanted some sort of electrodes into his body for the purpose of monitoring and controlling his actions via radio telemetry.” While Mr. Lambros also discusses the merits of the extradition issue and provides a procedural summary of his litigation, he offers no reasonable explanation for his default.
-4- This showing is required of pro se petitioners like Mr. Lambros, just as it is required of those represented by counsel. Id. at 335 (quoting Rodriguez v. Maynard, 948 F.2d 684, 687 (10th Cir. 1991)).
Applying these principles, our inquiry into the rec ord reveals nothing to show “cause” for Mr. Lambros’ failure to raise the extradition issue in his earlier petition nor anything justifying a review of his pe tition under the “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception. While Mr. Lambr os suggests “cause” exists for omitting the extradition issue in his first petitio n, his abstract assertions are patently void of facts sufficient to explain his de fault. 2 Accordingly, the district-5-

court did not err in denying Mr. Lambros’ § 2241 pe tition as an abuse of the writ.
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s March 22, 2000 Order granting Mr. Lambros’ motion to alter and amend the district court’s May 28, 1998 Order “to include the court’s discussion of th e dismissal of the petition as an abuse of the writ.” Entered by the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge