F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 27 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
WILLIAM LORD PUNCHARD, King,
Royal Democratic State of Continental
Africa Government (Edmound Right,
Royal Consul; Michel Contreres,
Royal Consul),
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
No. 02-2275
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; GARRY D.C. No. CIV-02-780 BB/KBM
JOHNSON, Governor; 2ND (D. New Mexico)
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEW MEXICO; 12TH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF NEW
MEXICO; NEW MEXICO STATE
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT;
DEMING CITY MAGISTRATE
COURT,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and 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.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this 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). 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, Punchard 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. Punchard 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
-2-
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.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-3-