Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MERCEIR CARDAN WELCH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 25-1315 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-03371-LTB-RTG) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE (D. Colo.) OF COLORADO,
Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________
Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Merceir Cardan Welch, proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a COA to
appeal the denial of a § 2254 application). We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.
I. BACKGROUND
In December 2024, Mr. Welch filed a § 2254 application stating that he was
confined at the Centennial Correctional Facility in Colorado. He alleged he had been
convicted in Colorado state court on two counts of violating Colorado’s Pawnbroker Act,
* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 2
both class six felonies; one felony theft charge; and one count of unlawful sexual contact,
a misdemeanor. He also alleged he was sentenced in 2018 to one year in prison and eight
years of felony sex offender intensive supervised probation (“SOISP”). He claimed his
sentence was illegal, the state court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction over
him, and his defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective by not informing him of the
SOISP consequence of pleading guilty to the sex offense.
A magistrate judge reviewed the application and ordered Mr. Welch to cure two
deficiencies in the application: it was not on the proper form, and it did not name his
custodian or the Colorado Attorney General as the respondent.
Mr. Welch filed an amended § 2254 application on the proper form and named the
Colorado Attorney General as the respondent. He asserted that the state court lacked
subject matter and personal jurisdiction over him because the statutes underlying his
convictions “are invalid laws that me A Natural Man is not subject to per the United
States Constitution”; he is descended from British royalty; and “this World & it’s [sic]
ruler has no claim on [him]” because he is “in Fact Jesus Christ.” R. at 81. The
magistrate judge found that the “claim and supporting factual allegations provide[d] no
specific credible allegations of a constitutional violation,” as required by Rules 2(c)(1)
and 2(c)(2) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts (“Habeas Rules”), but were “fantastic, delusional, and factually frivolous.” Suppl.
R. at 9. Accordingly, the magistrate judge ordered Mr. Welch to file an amended
2 Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 3
application asserting “credible, non-frivolous habeas claims and supporting factual
allegations” within 30 days or face dismissal of the action without further notice. Id. 1
Mr. Welch filed another amended § 2254 application. The magistrate judge
reviewed the amended application and ordered Mr. Welch to cure two deficiencies: it
was not filed on the proper form and it did not name his custodian or the Colorado
Attorney General as the respondent.
Mr. Welch filed yet another amended § 2254 application, this time on the proper
form and naming the Colorado Attorney General as the respondent. He asserted four
claims: (1) cruel and unusual punishment based on (a) the eight years of felony SOISP
he received for his misdemeanor sex-offense conviction and (b) his alleged poisoning
while in custody; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to explain the
consequences of his plea to the sex-offense charge; (3) lack of subject matter and
personal jurisdiction; and (4) illegal sentence.
The magistrate judge reviewed this amended application and recommended that it
be denied and the action dismissed without prejudice because Mr. Welch failed to plead
his claims with the specificity required by Habeas Rules 2(c)(1) and 2(c)(2). The
magistrate judge found Mr. Welch had failed “to provide a clear statement of any
cognizable habeas corpus claim that demonstrates his federal rights have been violated”
1 In his initial and first amended § 2254 applications, Mr. Welch referred to Colorado v. Welch, No. 20CA984, 2021 WL 12344513 (Colo. App. Apr. 29, 2021). In that decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of one of Mr. Welch’s applications for postconviction relief regarding the convictions and sentences at issue here. 3 Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 4
and “[h]is claims and supporting allegations are vague, unclear, conclusory, and in part
nonsensical.” R. at 140. The magistrate judge also explained that to the extent
Mr. Welch asserted a claim concerning the conditions of his confinement, he was
required to assert a claim in an action under either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), not in a
§ 2254 application.
Mr. Welch then submitted a filing the district court construed as timely written
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court overruled the objections,
accepted and adopted the recommendation, denied the final amended § 2254 application,
and dismissed the action without prejudice. The district court also denied a COA.
Mr. Welch now seeks a COA from this court.
II. DISCUSSION
A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires
“showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). For claims a district court denied
“on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim,”
the applicant must also show that reasonable jurists “would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. We afford Mr. Welch’s pro se
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MERCEIR CARDAN WELCH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 25-1315 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-03371-LTB-RTG) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE (D. Colo.) OF COLORADO,
Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________
Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Merceir Cardan Welch, proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a COA to
appeal the denial of a § 2254 application). We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.
I. BACKGROUND
In December 2024, Mr. Welch filed a § 2254 application stating that he was
confined at the Centennial Correctional Facility in Colorado. He alleged he had been
convicted in Colorado state court on two counts of violating Colorado’s Pawnbroker Act,
* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 2
both class six felonies; one felony theft charge; and one count of unlawful sexual contact,
a misdemeanor. He also alleged he was sentenced in 2018 to one year in prison and eight
years of felony sex offender intensive supervised probation (“SOISP”). He claimed his
sentence was illegal, the state court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction over
him, and his defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective by not informing him of the
SOISP consequence of pleading guilty to the sex offense.
A magistrate judge reviewed the application and ordered Mr. Welch to cure two
deficiencies in the application: it was not on the proper form, and it did not name his
custodian or the Colorado Attorney General as the respondent.
Mr. Welch filed an amended § 2254 application on the proper form and named the
Colorado Attorney General as the respondent. He asserted that the state court lacked
subject matter and personal jurisdiction over him because the statutes underlying his
convictions “are invalid laws that me A Natural Man is not subject to per the United
States Constitution”; he is descended from British royalty; and “this World & it’s [sic]
ruler has no claim on [him]” because he is “in Fact Jesus Christ.” R. at 81. The
magistrate judge found that the “claim and supporting factual allegations provide[d] no
specific credible allegations of a constitutional violation,” as required by Rules 2(c)(1)
and 2(c)(2) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts (“Habeas Rules”), but were “fantastic, delusional, and factually frivolous.” Suppl.
R. at 9. Accordingly, the magistrate judge ordered Mr. Welch to file an amended
2 Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 3
application asserting “credible, non-frivolous habeas claims and supporting factual
allegations” within 30 days or face dismissal of the action without further notice. Id. 1
Mr. Welch filed another amended § 2254 application. The magistrate judge
reviewed the amended application and ordered Mr. Welch to cure two deficiencies: it
was not filed on the proper form and it did not name his custodian or the Colorado
Attorney General as the respondent.
Mr. Welch filed yet another amended § 2254 application, this time on the proper
form and naming the Colorado Attorney General as the respondent. He asserted four
claims: (1) cruel and unusual punishment based on (a) the eight years of felony SOISP
he received for his misdemeanor sex-offense conviction and (b) his alleged poisoning
while in custody; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to explain the
consequences of his plea to the sex-offense charge; (3) lack of subject matter and
personal jurisdiction; and (4) illegal sentence.
The magistrate judge reviewed this amended application and recommended that it
be denied and the action dismissed without prejudice because Mr. Welch failed to plead
his claims with the specificity required by Habeas Rules 2(c)(1) and 2(c)(2). The
magistrate judge found Mr. Welch had failed “to provide a clear statement of any
cognizable habeas corpus claim that demonstrates his federal rights have been violated”
1 In his initial and first amended § 2254 applications, Mr. Welch referred to Colorado v. Welch, No. 20CA984, 2021 WL 12344513 (Colo. App. Apr. 29, 2021). In that decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of one of Mr. Welch’s applications for postconviction relief regarding the convictions and sentences at issue here. 3 Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 4
and “[h]is claims and supporting allegations are vague, unclear, conclusory, and in part
nonsensical.” R. at 140. The magistrate judge also explained that to the extent
Mr. Welch asserted a claim concerning the conditions of his confinement, he was
required to assert a claim in an action under either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), not in a
§ 2254 application.
Mr. Welch then submitted a filing the district court construed as timely written
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court overruled the objections,
accepted and adopted the recommendation, denied the final amended § 2254 application,
and dismissed the action without prejudice. The district court also denied a COA.
Mr. Welch now seeks a COA from this court.
II. DISCUSSION
A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires
“showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). For claims a district court denied
“on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim,”
the applicant must also show that reasonable jurists “would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. We afford Mr. Welch’s pro se
4 Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 5
filings a liberal construction, but we cannot act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta,
525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
Habeas Rule 2(c) required Mr. Welch to, among other things, “specify all the
grounds for relief available to [him]” and “state the facts supporting each ground.”
Habeas Rule 2(c)(1)–(2). “Rule 2(c) is more demanding” than the rules applicable to
ordinary civil actions. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). “A prime purpose of
Rule 2(c)’s demand that habeas petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the district
court in determining whether the State should be ordered to ‘show cause why the writ
should not be granted.’” Id. at 656 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2243). Naked allegations of
constitutional violations are not cognizable in a habeas corpus action. Ruark v. Gunter,
958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992).
In his combined COA application and opening brief, Mr. Welch makes no
argument addressing the district court’s dismissal of his habeas application for failure to
meet the habeas pleading standards. He has therefore waived any argument that we
should grant a COA. See Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d 1270, 1286 (10th Cir. 2020)
(“Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Still, having reviewed the district court’s rulings in light of
the record and the applicable law, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate
whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct or that Mr. Welch made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
5 Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 6
III. CONCLUSION
We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.
We deny Mr. Welch’s motion seeking leave to proceed on appeal without
prepayment of costs or fees (Dkt. No. 5) because he has failed to present “a reasoned,
nonfrivolous argument.” Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012).
We deny as moot Mr. Welch’s Motion to Address Cruel and Unusual Punishment
(Dkt. No. 9), because it amounts to an effort to assert a § 1983 claim concerning the
conditions of his confinement at the Arapahoe County Detention Facility as of the date
the motion was filed (October 20, 2025). Mr. Welch cannot bring a new § 1983 claim in
the first instance in this court.
We construe Mr. Welch’s untitled filing at Docket No. 13 as a motion to correct
the case caption to reflect his allegedly new legal name, “Lord Mercier Walter
Rothschild.” We deny the motion because it lacks any supporting documentation
verifying a legal name change and because whether he has changed his legal name is
irrelevant to our resolution of this case.
We deny Mr. Welch’s request to supplement the record with documents not
presented to the district court (Dkt. No. 15), because our review is generally limited to the
record that was before the district court. See Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d
641, 648 (10th Cir. 2008).
In his filing at Docket No. 18, Mr. Welch appears to seek a wide variety of relief
against appellee and entities who are not parties to this case (e.g., the U.S. Department of
Justice, the U.S. Marshals Services, all federal agencies, the Denver International Airport,
6 Appellate Case: 25-1315 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 7
the Denver Police Department, and the Denver RTD). He also asks for protection in the
federal witness-protection program and an order freezing all global assets linked to him.
This filing is difficult to understand and, construed liberally, presents no cognizable
argument. We deny any relief Mr. Welch may be seeking in this filing.
Entered for the Court
Veronica S. Rossman Circuit Judge