Houck v. Heaton
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision. The 10 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Stenseth v. Althoff (District Court, D. South Dakota 2025)
- Piens v. Reckard (District Court, D. South Dakota 2025)
- Escalante v. Droege (District Court, D. Kansas 2024)
- Brown v. Stoss (District Court, D. Kansas 2024)
- White (ID 76983) v. Parks (District Court, D. Kansas 2024)
- Foster (ID 92016) v. Geither (District Court, D. Kansas 2023)
- MILLER v. GOGGIN (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2023)
- Behounek v. Lujan Grisham (District Court, D. New Mexico 2020)
- Schmidt v. Petek (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2019)
- Mikhail v. Kahn (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2014)
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 lost his home to foreclosure and began a series of lawsuits against members of the Oklahoma judiciary involved in that process. As relevant to this action, Houck filed a one-page pro se complaint against Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Noma Gurich. Houck’s complaint sought “relief under Title 18 USC Section 242 to seek justice for those who have been denied their civil rights by judges in the state of Oklahoma.” R. at 3. Houck generally alleged corruption in the Oklahoma judiciary and accused Justice Gurich of wrongly dismissing claims related to his foreclosure. “The relief in this case,” he said, “needs to be a criminal investigation of the judges in the state of Oklahoma and a return to honesty in the court system.” Id.
The district court dismissed Houck’s complaint for failure to state a claim because 18 U.S.C. § 242 provides no private right of action. The district court is correct. As we noted in one of Houck’s previous appeals, 18 U.S.C. § 242 does not create a private civil cause of action. Houck v. Ball, No. 12-6301, 2013 WL 541074, at *1 (10th Cir. Feb.14, 2013) (citing Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 *725 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir. 1994)); see also Henry v. Albuquerque Police Dep’t, 49 Fed. Appx. 272, 273 (10th Cir. 2002) (“claims arising under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 ... do not provide for a private civil cause of action”).
We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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.