Perreault v. Fishman, etc. ( 1993 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    July 23, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ___________________


    No. 93-1481




    RICHARD G. PERREAULT,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    HARRIET FISHMAN, ETC., ET AL.,

    Defendants, Appellees.

    __________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    [Hon. Shane Devine, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ___________________

    Before

    Breyer, Chief Judge,
    ___________
    Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ___________________

    Richard G. Perreault on brief pro se.
    ____________________
    Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Susan S. Geiger,
    __________________ ________________
    Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees, The
    Honorable Harriet Fishman, The Honorable Bruce Mohl, and The
    Honorable David A. Brock



    __________________

    __________________

















    Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment dismissing
    ___________

    plaintiff's action substantially for the reasons stated by

    the district court. Having had an opportunity to challenge

    the child support award in state court, plaintiff may not

    raise in federal court either the same challenges or new ones

    which could have been presented to the state court. Migra v.
    _____

    Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 81
    ___________________________________________

    (1984) ("a federal court must give to a state court judgment

    the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment

    under the law of the State in which the judgment was

    rendered"); Marine Construction Corp. v. First Southern
    ___________________________ _______________

    Leasing, Ltd., 129 N.H. 270, 274-75, 525 A.2d 709, 712 (1987)
    _____________

    (barring all theories which could have been raised in the

    earlier litigation; "[t]he central policy 'exemplified by the

    free permissive joinder of claims, liberal amendment

    provisions, and compulsory counterclaims, is that the whole

    controversy between the parties may and often must be brought

    before the same court in the same action'"); Restatement

    (Second) of Judgments 22(2)(b).

    There is no merit to plaintiff's claim that the New

    Hampshire Supreme Court denied him due process by summarily

    rejecting his appeal. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56,8 77
    _______ ______

    (1972) (no constitutional right to an appeal).

    Plaintiff's request for oral argument is denied, and the

    judgment is affirmed.



    -2-















    Affirmed.
    ________



















































    -3-







Document Info

Docket Number: 93-1481

Filed Date: 7/23/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015