Court Opinion

ID: 2961379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:42:35.367027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:43.197456
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 10, 1992                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                 ___________________          No. 91-2254                                          GERMAIN RAMIREZ-FERNANDEZ,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge                                         ___________                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ___________________               Germain Ramirez-Fernandez, on brief pro se.               _________________________               Richard S.  Cohen,  United  States  Attorney,  and  F.  Mark               _________________                                   ________          Terison, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.          _______                                  __________________                                 __________________                                  Per Curiam.   We agree with the district court that                      __________            appellant's  present action attempting  to recover damages or            the jewelry which was the subject of the forfeiture action is            barred  by res judicata.    That appellant's  defenses to the            forfeiture action  were not actually litigated  either in the            forfeiture action or in appellant's subsequently unsuccessful            Rule  60(b) type motion to  set aside the forfeiture judgment            does not avail appellant because a judgment, even if obtained            by default, has res  judicata effect as against all  defenses            which could have been raised in the action.  Saud  v. Bank of                                                         ____     _______            New York, 929 F.2d 916, 918-22 (2d Cir. 1991).            ________                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-