Punchard v. State of New Mexico

Tenth Circuit

Punchard v. State of New Mexico

56 F. App'x 443

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 2003

Docket02-2275

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 56 F. App'x 443 (Punchard v. State of New Mexico) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Punchard v. State of New Mexico, 56 F. App'x 443 (10th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PER CURIAM.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this *444 appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

William Punchard, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action for lack of federal jurisdiction. In his filings before the district court, Punch-ard alleged that he is the head-of-state of a non-existent country and that two diplomats employed by his “country” are being illegally incarcerated in New Mexico state prison; Punchard requested habeas relief on behalf of these two individuals. Punch-ard further alleged that he was being harassed by the Deming, New Mexico “City Magistrate Court,” which is allegedly mailing “Harassing Court Summons” to his “Royal Embassy.” In dismissing this action, the district court concluded that Punchard’s allegations were so fanciful and delusional that they failed to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction.

This court has thoroughly reviewed all of the numerous documents filed by Punchard in this appeal and has reviewed de novo the district court’s order of dismissal and the entire record on appeal. That review demonstrates that the district court’s resolution of the case was substantially correct. Accordingly, this court AFFIRMS for substantially those reasons set out in the district court’s order of dismissal dated September 3, 2002. All pending motions are hereby DENIED.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. *444 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PER CURIAM.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this *444 appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

William Punchard, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action for lack of federal jurisdiction. In his filings before the district court, Punch-ard alleged that he is the head-of-state of a non-existent country and that two diplomats employed by his “country” are being illegally incarcerated in New Mexico state prison; Punchard requested habeas relief on behalf of these two individuals. Punch-ard further alleged that he was being harassed by the Deming, New Mexico “City Magistrate Court,” which is allegedly mailing “Harassing Court Summons” to his “Royal Embassy.” In dismissing this action, the district court concluded that Punchard’s allegations were so fanciful and delusional that they failed to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction.

This court has thoroughly reviewed all of the numerous documents filed by Punchard in this appeal and has reviewed de novo the district court’s order of dismissal and the entire record on appeal. That review demonstrates that the district court’s resolution of the case was substantially correct. Accordingly, this court AFFIRMS for substantially those reasons set out in the district court’s order of dismissal dated September 3, 2002. All pending motions are hereby DENIED.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. *444 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F. App'x 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/punchard-v-state-of-new-mexico-ca10-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack