BILLY PUNCHARD V. U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, No. 17-16567 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BILLY PUNCHARD, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-16567 D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00148-JGZ v. MEMORANDUM* U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Billy Punchard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising from a mining lease located in New Mexico. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion dismissal as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Sneller v. City of Bainbridge * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Island, 606 F.3d 636, 638 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Punchard’s action as a Rule 11 sanction because Punchard failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (requiring “short and plain statement of the claim”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (by presenting a pleading to the court, unrepresented party certifies that it is not being presented for an improper purpose and that the claims are legally and factually supported). We reject as meritless Punchard’s contentions regarding the timeliness of defendant Luna County New Mexico Board of Commission’s answering brief, the denial of Punchard’s “Praecipe Motion for Corrections,” and the district court’s warnings that he may be subject to future sanctions for filing actions with obvious defects. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 17-16567

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.