FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 12, 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
EVERETT HOUCK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 13-6265
(D.C. No. 5:13-CV-01158-HE)
HAROLD BALL, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
After examining Appellant’s brief and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
On August 3, 2012, pro se appellant Everett Houck initiated a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action against defendants Harold Ball and Judge Dan Owens in Oklahoma
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
state court. The district court dismissed the suit with prejudice and this court
affirmed the dismissal. Houck v. Ball, 491 F. App’x 934 (10th Cir. 2012). Houck
filed a second § 1983 action against Defendant Ball on October 30, 2013. The
district court dismissed Houck’s second suit, concluding it was barred by the
doctrine of claim preclusion. See Wilkes v. Wyo. Dep’t of Emp’t Div. of Labor
Standards, 314 F.3d 501, 503-04 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Under res judicata, or claim
preclusion, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or
their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in the
prior action.” (quotation omitted)).
Houck then filed the instant appeal together with a request to proceed in
forma pauperis. A dismissal on res judicata grounds is reviewed de novo.
MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir. 2005). Having reviewed
the record, Houck’s appellate brief, and the applicable law, we discern no
reversible error in the dismissal of Houck’s instant § 1983 complaint.
Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the district
court’s order dismissing Houck’s complaint is affirmed for substantially the
reasons stated by the district court in its Order dated November 5, 2013. Houck’s
-2-
motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and he is reminded that he must
make immediate payment of the unpaid balance of his appellate filing fee. All
other outstanding motions are denied.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-