Houck v. Ball
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Winningham v. City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (United States District Court, Oklahoma Northern 2025)
- Phillips v. Rose (District Court, D. New Mexico 2024)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Everett Houck filed a pro se complaint against Harold Ball, Judge Dan Owens, and Priscilla Presley, the Oklahoma County Court Clerk, seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. § 242, a criminal provision concerning the deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law. R. 3-5. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on the ground that § 242 does not provide a private right of action. R. 10-11. On appeal, Mr, Houck argues that the ease was dismissed prematurely. The district court was correct as there is no private right of action under § 242. See Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir. 1994) (no private right of action under § 242); see also Newcomb v. Ingle, 827 F.2d 675, 676 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (no private right of action under § 241).
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.