
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 23, 1993         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-1481                                            RICHARD G. PERREAULT,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                            HARRIET FISHMAN, ETC., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                       [Hon. Shane Devine, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ___________________               Richard G. Perreault on brief pro se.               ____________________               Jeffrey R.  Howard, Attorney  General, and Susan  S. Geiger,               __________________                         ________________          Senior Assistant  Attorney General,  on brief for  appellees, The          Honorable  Harriet Fishman,  The  Honorable Bruce  Mohl, and  The          Honorable David A. Brock                                  __________________                                  __________________                 Per  Curiam.     We  affirm   the  judgment   dismissing                 ___________            plaintiff's  action substantially for  the reasons  stated by            the district court.   Having had an  opportunity to challenge            the  child support  award in state  court, plaintiff  may not            raise in federal court either the same challenges or new ones            which could have been presented to the state court.  Migra v.                                                                 _____            Warren  City School Dist. Bd.  of Education, 465  U.S. 75, 81            ___________________________________________            (1984)  ("a federal court must give to a state court judgment            the same  preclusive effect as  would be given  that judgment            under  the law  of  the  State  in  which  the  judgment  was            rendered");  Marine  Construction  Corp.  v.  First  Southern                         ___________________________      _______________            Leasing, Ltd., 129 N.H. 270, 274-75, 525 A.2d 709, 712 (1987)            _____________            (barring  all theories  which could have  been raised  in the            earlier litigation; "[t]he central policy 'exemplified by the            free   permissive  joinder   of  claims,   liberal  amendment            provisions,  and compulsory counterclaims,  is that the whole            controversy between the parties may and often must be brought            before  the same  court  in the  same action'");  Restatement            (Second) of Judgments   22(2)(b).                           There  is no  merit to  plaintiff's  claim that  the New            Hampshire Supreme  Court denied him due  process by summarily            rejecting  his appeal.  Lindsey  v. Normet, 405  U.S. 56,8 77                                    _______     ______            (1972) (no constitutional right to an appeal).                 Plaintiff's request for oral argument is denied, and the            judgment is affirmed.                                         -2-                 Affirmed.                 ________                                         -3-
