-
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July 23, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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