Court Opinion

ID: 2963918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:23.321699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:33.495759
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 6, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1937

                                LAWRENCE R. HOMO, SR.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              TOWN OF HENNIKER, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                       __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Lawrence R. Homo on brief pro se.
            ________________
            David P. Slawsky on brief for appellees.
            ________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  We find no  merit in plaintiff's contention
                 __________

            that he was denied a full and fair opportunity to present his

            arguments  in his  state court  actions.   The state  court's

            failure to  accord him a hearing in  his 1994 state court law

            suit  does  not  preclude  the application  of  res  judicata

            principles.

                 We affirm  substantially for  the reasons stated  in the

            district court's July 6, 1995 opinion.  Plaintiff's challenge

            to  his arrest and prosecution were so closely related to the

            subjects  of  his  state  court  action  that  plaintiff  was

            required  to  present  all  his  challenges  in  one  action.

            Restatement  (Second) of Judgments   24 (1982).  See 1st Cir.
                                                             ___

            R. 27.1.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -2-