Burgess v. Board of Trustees
Case Date: 11/17/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1539
|
November 17, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1539 WILLIAM J. BURGESS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE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. _______________________________________________ |