Ramirez-Fernandez v. United States

Opinion

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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-