Jack Pierson, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Pierson Family; Axel Pierson; Nissa Pierson; Glofand Gusfav, Plaintiffs, v. Linda Powers, Charles Powers; Kansas Judicial Court; United States Government, Office of the President; George Bush; Ronald Reagan, President; Dan Quayle, Vice President; Speaker of the House of Representatives; House of Representatives; Thomas, Representative; President of Senate; United States Senate; State of Kansas, Governor'S Office; Joan (Nmi) Finney, Governor; Michael Hayden, Governor; State of California; Pete Wilson, Governor; Governor Duekmagian; State of Minnesota; Arnie Carlson, Governor; Rudy Perpich; Robert M. Small, Assistant United States Attorney; Robert D. Rowe, Office of the Vice President; L.W. Bennett; Michael Antonovich, Supervisor; La County Claims Director; Pacific Bell Security Department; La County District Attorney, Antelope Valley Office; American National Bank; Antelope Valley Press; Carol Wolf; Sears Savings Bank; Lori Trojan; ..., 947 F.2d 954 (10th Cir. 1991)

Docket Number: 91-3134

Reporting Judge: NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 1...

Linked as:

Text

Before LOGAN, JOHN P. MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

LOGAN, Circuit Judge.

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. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Jack Pierson, purporting to act on behalf of himself and his family, including his children, has sued approximately 200 defendants including the United States government, the states of Kansas, California, Minnesota, and their officers, alleging conspiracy to deprive him of due process, compulsory process, assistance of jurisdiction, and various other freedoms.

We believe that the district court Memorandum and Order entered April 1, 1991, summarizes as well as we can understand the voluminous pleadings, and that it properly analyzes the legal issues. We AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for substantially the reasons stated in that order.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3