Court Opinion

ID: 2963792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:15.230764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:35.526181
License: Public Domain

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          November 17, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.
                 _______________________________________________