Case Name: Everett HOUCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Noma D. GURICH, Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-30
Citations: 515 F. App'x 724
Docket Number: No. 13-6029
Parties: Everett HOUCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Noma D. GURICH, Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVTCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 515
Pages: 724–725

Head Matter:
Everett HOUCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Noma D. GURICH, Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-6029.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 30, 2013.
Everett Houck, Del City, OK, pro se.
Devan Pederson, Office of the Attorney General for The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVTCH, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
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 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.