Burgess v. Board of Trustees ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

          November 17, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________







        No. 95-1539





                                 WILLIAM J. BURGESS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



            BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________





            William J. Burgess on brief pro se.
__________________

            Ronald F. Rodgers on brief for appellees.
_________________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________











































                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the parties' briefs  and
__________



            the  record on appeal.  We affirm essentially for the reasons



            stated in the district court's order, dated March 28, 1995.



                 We add  only the following comment.   Appellant contends



            that res judicata ought not to apply because, in this federal



            proceeding, he  is seeking equitable relief,  which the state



            district  court  did not  have  jurisdiction to  award.   The



            argument  is unavailing.   Because a  state court  of general



            jurisdiction -  the state superior  court - was  available to



            appellant, appellant  is precluded from  splitting his claim,



            even though he brought his action first in a court of limited



            jurisdiction.  See e.g.,  Restatement (Second) of Judgments
________



            24 cmt. g (1982).  Moreover, appellant was told at the outset



            by  the state  judge  hearing appellant's  first state  court
_____



            small  claims action  that  he did  not  have equity  powers.



            Nonetheless, appellant  pursued  his small  claims action  at



            that  time  and  then  subsequently  proceeded  to  file  two
___



            additional small claims actions.
__________



                 We have considered appellant's other arguments on appeal



            and find them to be without merit.



                 Appellant's motion for summary  reversal of the district



            court's judgment is denied.
_______



                 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
_______________________________________________