Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02321/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02321-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

... 

Fl LEO 

Utaked States Court of Appeals Tenth Cit01it 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

fEB 2 3 1988 

BILLY LLOYD EDWARDS PUNCHARD, II, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO; SIXTH JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT COURT; THOMAS T. CLARK, 

Deputy District Attorney for the 

Sixth Judicial District; 

JUDGE NORMAN HODGES; THOMAS DEIKER, 

New Mexico State Hospital Director; 

DR. THOMAS E. STURN; DR. ANNE HUGHES, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 87-2321 

) (D.C. No. 87-1028JB) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.*/4 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff filed this combination civil rights/habeas corpus 

action seeking his release from confinement at the state hospital 

Appellate Case: 87-2321 Document: 010110027514 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
... 

at Las Vegas, New Mexico, and over $90,000,000.00 in damages. The 

district court, accepting plaintiff's claim that he is a 

"certified foreign government head of state," dismissed the 

complaint without prejudice, holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1251, 

jurisdiction over controversies where ministers of foreign states 

are parties is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court. 

The language of 28 U.S.C. § 125l(b)(l) (1978) provides for 

original but not exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. See 

Ohio v. Wyandotte Chems. Corp., 401 U.S. 493, 498 n.3 (1971); 

Connecticut v. Levi Strauss & Co., 471 F. Supp. 363, 370 n.5 (D. 

Conn. 1979); Bors v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252 (1884) (interpreting 

Judiciary Act of 1789); Pooley v. Luco, 76 F. 146 (D. Cal. 1896). 

Nonetheless, the district court's dismissal is affirmed. 

Plaintiff has two actions, one brought pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

§ 2254 (No. 85-0809 C) and one under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 (No. 86-1200 

M), presently pending in the district court. Plaintiff either has 

raised or can raise the issues he seeks to present here in these 

other actions. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2321 Document: 010110027514 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2