*1 RIVES, DYER, Bеfore BELL and Cir- Judges. cuit DYER, Judge: Circuit presented ques- We are here ju- District Court had *2 alleged complaint cor- in were de- facts directly final a review to risdiction did rect defendants and further constitutional federal termination questions or other re- and to file an answer voluntarily not have submitted sponse. then entered The District Florida in Court courts of the state decided judgment merits in favor of litigation pending in connection with pleadings, and courts, defendants based the United no review having appeal ensued. Court States sought. ju- no had Court The District from the com is obvious It risdiction, we reverse. and plaint requested that the relief and attempting here re- Gayle were Brown and James In 1961 litigate constitutional custody their Gayle was awarded divorced. by obtaining claims form direct a In child, Brown. Dawn Elaine their court review of the state federal district decisions, in the filed suit Brown 1966 James independent equitable since Court Relations and Domestic Juvenile proceedings prevent the May Florida, County, and on of Dade 8, enforcement judgment direct of a are considered a changing entered аn order was Restatement, Judg attack it. See custody the mother of the child (1942). The ments comment a appeal filed in was An to the father. ju patently without District Court was Ap- District Third Court the Florida peal, engage in such a risdiction to review. and for the mother counsel but Co., Fidelity in Rooker v. Trust As noted the cost child soon discovered testimony transcript preparing a L.Ed. 362: beyond the fi- was the lower court child. means of the mother and questions nancial If the stated constitutional pray- petition actually Court [complaint] A the Juvenile in the . . . ing of Florida cause, province either the State it arose was pay required to for duty or the father be and of the state courts to decide denied; transcript a similar was them; decision, their petition Appeal de- Court of wrong, or exercise of was an nied; finally appeal to the Su- jurisdiction. If the decision was preme judg- wrong, that did not make the denying transcript free was dismissed. void, merely open ment but left it attempt Supreme Court No for direct ap- reversal or in an modification decisions the state court timely propriate appellate pro- through certiorari ceeding. under 28 U.S.C.A. and until so reversed Unless 1257 was made. modified, or an effective it would be adjudication. and conclusive [Cita- their com- then filed legislation tions Under omitted] alleging plaint in the District Court Congress, no court the United tran- the denial script of a free the State Supreme] States other than this [the state civil for use their proceeding Court could entertain a violation of the Due Proc- constituted modify judgment reverse or Equal Protection Clauses ess errors of that character. [Citations very Amendment, the Fourteenth To do so omitted] would be ex- allegation courts same the state which appellate jurisdiction. ercise of rejected. had considered and The com- jurisdiction possessed by the District plaint prayed for in the form of relief * * * strictly original. Courts is mandatory injunction requiring Id., 415-416, at 44 S.Ct. at 150. provide State of Florida to father, expense at the the State or the As stated in Pilkinton Pil alternatively kinton, the order strike “[i]t changing plainly of the child. appellant Soon evident that what hearing open original afterwards a was held. seeks in this action is a review parties stipulated proceedings the federal courts of original proceeding . Courts trict as an . . [Florida] specific statutory Federal courts are action. there in the divorce author- ity. ap authority corpus exception to. function as an Habeas is an without ordinary judicata. pellate rules of res the state courts.” Id. arm of Note, Developments constitu The decision Law—Res *3 Judicata, 818, 65 a state court does Harv.L.Rev. 851 tional injunction mandatory in the Neither do we consider the in- warrant stant as a nor an strik action order collateral attack rather nature mandamus ing direct, than if “State since waived the its decision erroneous. even requirement competent questions of an answer to decide to the com- courts arising plaint, constitution, in which under affirmative defense judicata assuredly pleaded, res could have and federal courts most do disgruntled affirmatively provide ap- since the a forum in defense peared body re-litigate parties complaint in the can claims it- presented self. de which have been Hill cided state courts.” Deane The District Court should have dis- Country Knoxville, Club, City Inc. v. complaint juris- missed the for lack of 1967, 321, 6 379 Cir. F.2d See diction to review the state courts’ action Holding generally v. Evanson Northwest entering judgment rather than on the 1966, 531; Co., 8 Cir. F.2d Coral 368 merits. Therefore the case is reversed Gables First Nat. v. Constructors Bank and remanded to the District Court with Florida, Inc., 1962, of 736; Cir. F.2d 5 299 complaint instructions dismiss Co., Hanna Home Cir. v. Ins. 5 jurisdiction. lack of 1960, 298; 281 F.2d Norwood v. Paren Reversed and remanded. 1955, 148;
teau, 8
Par
Cir.
228 F.2d
Mount,
1953,
F.2d
nacher v.
10 Cir.
207
RIVES,
Judge (dissenting):
Circuit
788,
917,
denied, 1954,
cert.
347 U.S.
provides
appeals
Florida law
515,
1073;
74
v.
S.Ct.
98 L.Ed.
Williams
custody
be taken from
by
orders rendered
Tooke,
1940,
758,
5
F.2d
cert.
Cir.
108
juvenile
courts.
39.14
F.S.A. §
denied,
8,
655,
1940,
61
S.Ct.
(1968 Supp.);
Appel-
Part
I.
infra
419;
Paine, Webber,
85 L.Ed.
Moran v.
lants
ask
federal courts to decide
Curtis, W.D.Pa.1967,
F.
Jackson &
279
may,
whether Florida
consistent with the
Supp.
1968,
573, aff’d
F.2d
3 Cir.
389
commands
Consti-
United States
242;
Sercombe, D.Or.1967,
Lenske v.
tution, “administer this statute so
toas
609;
F.Supp.
Lehman,
266
Chirillo v.
deny adequate appellate
1941,
S.D.N.Y.1940,
65,
F.Supp.
38
aff’d
poor
granting
while
such review to all
662,
741,
61
85
Illinois, 1956,
others.” Griffin v.
City
1108. See also
of Greenwood
12, 13,
U.S.
76 S.Ct.
100 L.Ed.
Peacock, 1966,
86 S.Ct.
U.S.
court,
891. The district
after declar-
944; England
1800, 16 L.Ed.2d
Lou
ing
it had
over the
Examiners,
State
isiana
Bd. of Medical
controversy,
transgression
found no
84 S.Ct.
U.S.
constitutional
in the administra-
440; Angel Bullington,
L.Ed.2d
tion of this
statute.
reverse
91 L.Ed.
part
present
and hold
Florida
832;
Hulse,
Jones v.
Cir.
practice
indigent
mother and child
Frick,
F.2d
Stevens
plaintiffs
seeking
appeal
from
Golden,
378; Tomiyasu
change
custody
order are entitled to
6. Court of Florida. That ancillary liti up attack It most the time on collateral true. comes corpus gation prisoners a tran of costs of burden over the in habeas State hear- arguable testimony. script example. ings. good It That is a complaining goes brings the state “A fellow a Rule 1 and judgment will child’s Court and he is turned District “judicial nothing more than after been turned down amount down he has p. Moore, supra, wastepaper.” Trial Court and surely denies, federal courts of Florida then he comes into remedy every exer situation the Federal Courts now and cising judge he has to concurrent then Federal finds amounting collaterally does, nul to a an afford him when he some relief and people lity Wil terms. in constitutional scream and the one holler Tooke, judge important is more than all liams v. Justices, something and there is Judge Apparently wrong system. Baton was convinced with the *8 seeking they understand, not were it “What do not ais During being considered, the district court. relief in tire Federal that is matter hearing Constitution, remarked: he Federal course the the United asking the me to review not “He is States That is what Constitution. Fed- ruling. for, they This common is a but State Court’s eral Courts are do under lawyers Comity make. mistake that the Clause law that the State first, (.sic) They asking carry consider it do the not out me “He is simply turn United the States Consti- the Constitution mandate Courts, tution over to so the State we stat- and certain Federal United States talking reviewing any- asking are not about not me consider He is utes. thing. wrong talking We are about initial not Florida is whether or arising subject. thrust under the matters out of the Federal Law which is judges “Lawyers not real- who do question of review.” ly down want to run understand this the Federal all time Supreme and holler 7. Because of Florida court af- reviewing opin- work Su- Court is firmed lower courts without an 1020 major- spective Assuming, arguendo, limitation on “federal —as jurisdic appellants’ courts” discretion to exercise ity’s correct label is Publishing voluntarily tion. Tribune Co. to and Review submitted were
claims
adjudicated
Thomas,
Noia,
supra; Fay
1963,
courts,
372
the ma-
state
415-420,
no-relitigation
L.Ed.
upon
83
9
jority’s
U.S.
S.Ct.
reliance
2d
of, Rooker, supra, requires
837.
extensive
rule
important
note at the
comment. It is
the other cases cited
Rooker and
outset that
the Rooker doctrine
majority
speak
plainly
in terms of
upon
exception
to or limitation
is,
judi-
judgment,
estoppel by
res
courts,
original jurisdiction of
federal
estoppel. The ratio
cata or collateral
grant-
jurisdiction has been
for once the
clearly
decidendi of those cases
ed,
Congress
only
people by
or the
con- outgrowth
its
1738 and
28 U.S.C. §
it.
can constrict
stitutional amendment
U.S.Const.,
Although I
common law antecedents.8
id.,
See,
g.,
e.
III.
Art.
continuing validity of
do not doubt the
Rather, the
is a
Amend. XI.
doctrine
estoppel
principle
limita-
as a
fed-
limitation on the discretion
power by
the fed-
tion on the exercise
jurisdiction.
their
eral courts
exercise
courts,
County
see, g.,
eral
e. Dade
Class-
dismissing a
The difference between
Nathan,
Ass’n,
5
Inc.
room Teachers
power and dis-
lack of
claim because
re-
Cir.
413
missing
of limited dis-
a claim because
application
principle
strict
of that
may,
cretion to exercise
premised
cases
1343 and
on 28 U.S.C. §
submit,
blush,
first
seem academic.
analysis of
1983. A careful
U.S.C. §
involving
however, that, unlike decisions
applying the Rooker doctrine
cases
re-
rigid
jurisdictional
interpretations of
complaints
most
veals that
statutes,
proper
exer-
determinations
grounded upon
were
28 U.S.C. §
tempered
cise are
considerations
general
jurisdiction.
justice,
so-
efficient administration
Fink,
See,
g.,
e.
5 Cir.
Warriner v.
rights,
regard
fundamental
licitous
Golden,
933, 936; Tomiyasu
307 F.2d
of the chan-
and the traditional discretion
Moreover,
1021 liberty. See, g., the Effect of a Prior Deter e. Cam State Court human volve 155, mination, (1967). F.Supp. Rogers, 157 53 U.Va.L.Rev. 1360 199 аcho v. court); my 1961) (three judge support position As for at least three (S.D.N.Y., City circuits, including one, Club, opaque Country Inc. v. Hill Deane 321, suggested 1967, ly judi Knoxville, F.2d the Rooker res 379 6 Cir. Thus, give principle inapplicable limited is actions (dicta). I cata would 325 Moreover, estoppel involving principle of 42 1983.9 U.S.C. effect § involving authority holding significantly judgment there is a line of in cases liberty premised 28 “A a U.S. determination federal consti human only I the civil tutional a state tribunal is do find 1343. Not C. § “compelling ap rights jurisdiction if there no basis” conclusive is a rigorous peal to exception bar of the federal courts.” Co. Garland for Filmer, 8, (N.D.Cal., F.Supp. Record 1 judicata, v. 12 see Manufacturers res 1947, 234, 1932). Angel Bullington, Lauer, F.Supp. 240 169 v. Pub. Co. 183, 11, Wechsler, 205, supra, 330 189 (E.D.La., 1959); but fn. 67 S. 657, (Rutledge, J., liberty of 91 L.Ed. dis regard personal St. 832 senting). appellants’ only path precious appellant too Since far 11-year-old Supreme by certiorari, genuflective re Court jeopardized to be 1257, appeal, see 28 there sponse exceptionable rule of dis U.S.C. § to an certainty appellants’ is little claims cretion. upon by passed will ever be federal 1983, is one of the which 42 U.S.C. § judges. light ap In the of the limited complaint, created appellants’ for bases plications special of Rooker re and the redressable national substantive gard which cases have shown for C.I.O., supra, Hague v. forum. federal prompt special full and vindication (Stone, 529, 954 59 327 U.S. rights, national would hold Concurring); J., v. Board McNeese district court did not abuse its discre 1963, Education, etc., exercising jurisdiction tion in 28 622; 1433, Beaure- L.Ed.2d 83 10 1343.10 gard Wingard, F.Supp. 185 230 Barring 1964) (S.D.Cal., (dictum). (2) Principles Federalism hearing aris- claims courts from federal Appellees argue federal court ing stat- civil of the national out cannot assume of this dis- serve the needs neither utes would pute Supreme until file comity federal- promote harmonious nor petition Court of the United States Note, Judi- relationships. Res certiorari Flor- argument presents problem ida. This Jurisdiction Federal cata: Exclusive Corpus (1944); O’Connor, 315 39 C.J.S. Habeas 41-42 §§ 5 Cir. 9. O’Connor Hardy Nelson, Harris 422; v. Northwestern F.2d cf. Association, (March 24, Saving 22 L.Ed .2d 281 S.Ct. 1969). and Loan Federal corpus U.S.App.D.C. F.2d habeas On adjudi plenary Olson, 70; would be afforded Jenson Co., Home Ins. cation of their constitutional claims since Hanna v. F.2d is, majority recognizes, But habeas as the 303. 5 Cir. cf. exception judi Rouge Parish settled to the rules of res Baton v. East Frazier Allen, 1953, Board, cata. F.2d 861 Brown v. School (dicta). 97 L.Ed. Bator, Finality Law and Criminal analogy lends to the Great Writ An Corpus Prisoners, Habeas appellant my support position. Had Harv.L.Rev. It he custody of her child transferred Harden somewhat anomalous —and most assured husband, and the both she to her former ly traumatic for Dawn Blaine Brown— cus husband’s then test child could postpone until after corpus. tody by using writ of habeas process, the end the state g., (1969 supp.) ; see e. F.S.A. 79.01 constitutionality being Thomas, Fla. So. Trotman generally, question. (1944) ; see drawn into 2d *10 1022 comity. Fay Noia, vindicating rights.
of federal-state of Const., individual supra,, 822. I 372 at 83 S.Ct. Art. III. Abstention in this case authority persuasive prop- legislative purpose for allowing find no for the required appellants body equitable sys osition that be should to establish “a more jurisprudence” tem to exhaust federal remedies be- would be tanta original jurisdiction invoking fore under mount to an unlawful abdication Although duty. Altus, City ad- 28 1343. U.S.C. constitutional § usually Carr, F.Supp. (W. ministrative remedies must ex- be Oklahoma v. 255 828 invoking juris- 1966) (three-judge court). D.Tex., hausted before But diction, strictly Connecticut, the same rule not Boddie does State cf. F.Supp. 968, judicial proceedings apply (D.Conn., 1968) (three- unconnected judge court) granted an administrative scheme. Lane v. cert. 395 U.S. Wilson, 1939, 268, 274, 59 S.Ct. 307 U.S. L.Ed.2d 763. Sadler, 83 L.Ed. McGuire Appellees’ argument grounded final 906. See principle of federalism concerns generally Holtzoff, 1 Barron Federal & whether the district court (Wright Practice ed. 1950 with § injunction compelling could an “issue supp.). But Alabama Public cf. action, state court where the issue in- Co., 1951, Ry. Service Comm.v. Southern proceeded through volved has the state 341, 348-350, 71 S.Ct. system to a final determination.” prompt L.Ed. 1002. In the case at bar Although appellees’ language in appellants’ vindication of is nec- rationale, brief smacks the Rooker essary so that the child can be afforded appellees rely upon general anti- family relationship. a stable There is injunction statute, 2283.11 § compelling why no reason the federal Assuming present purposes for that the stay court should its hand because prayed complaint relief for is that appellants’ pursue failure to a doubtful type injunction contemplated by sec- remedy. 2283,12 I would hold that does argument upon prin- based second appellants’ requests. not bar ciples urges of federalism that the merits why are I There two reasons think appropriate of this ease more are pro- section not 2283 is these bar by legislature. Although determination ceedings. First, injunctive relief in quarrel proposition do with the “necessary this case is sustainable as legislatures repositories that the “jurisdiction” aid of” the dis- general authority, rulemaking must trict court.13 case un- Jurisdiction of a emphasize judiciary, an in- as necessarily government, dependent der 28 is bur- U.S.C. 1343 includes branch § duty dened having Constitution with judgment to enter a Stay proceed- necessarily except require- 11. 2283. State them from the ings injunction ments of section if the may interfering A court of the United States has the effect of in the state’s grant injunction stay proceedings judical processes. Moreover, except expressly pray general equitable relief, which, in a au- Congress, here, might thorized Act of оr where in- under the circumstances necessary jurisdiction, stay in aid of its or to un- clude a of the state court protect judgments. protected. appellants’ fully or effectuate its til “proceedings” statutory exception 12. The term in this section issue here degree greatest great degree has been defined with the has not been with a defined steps precision. guides determining of latitude and includes “all taken Two injunctive or which be taken in the state court when relief is “in aid” of the jurisdiction may First, its officers from the institution court’s useful. process.” points the close of the final Hill v. Note to section Reviser’s Martin, 1935, injunction out should be allowed any fact case in which it would be allowed mandatory injunc- Act, ask for a the All Writs 28 U.S.C. negative injunc- tion rather than a one does not 1651. Since that statute allows
1023
This
parties
the
section 2283.
has
upon the
before
effect
desired
case,
left
injunctive
the
Court on
relief is
unresolved
In this
court.
in-
occasion.
more than one
Dombrowski v.
necessary
the
court’s
in
of
aid
rights
479,
Pfister, 1965,
2,
jurisdiction
protect
380
n.
to
dependent
14
Cameron
cus-
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
ancillary
merits
the child
to thе
of
Johnson,
not
tody
I do
construe
determination.
Although cognizant of
jurisdiction”
as to
II.
circumstances
the service of a sum-
308(4),
by publication
(CPLR
mons
are be
hold that
315, 316, 317;
Relations Law
Domestic
guaranteed
ing
deprived of
221). This
effective
hurdle
Equal
Clause
Protection
them
*14
Jeffreys’
to Mrs.
to the
barrier
access
Florida
the Fourteenth Amendment.
The loss
to the courts
courts.
of access
appel
applied
to
appellate rules
its
right
in
action for
an
is
divorce
pro
equal
deprive
them
so as
lants
magnitude
only
substantial
when
Although
Four
tection of
laws.
through
the courts
redress or re-
terms,
Amendment,
does not
its
teenth
right
is,
lief
it
be obtained.
Such
distinguish
criminal
between civil
me,
right
seems to
as basic as Griffin’s
rarely
cases,
used the
the courts have
right
Harper’s
Mrs.
down
equal protection
to strike
clause
discriminatory
manifestly
It
is
vote.
financial
man’s
discrimination based on a
deprive
standards
ap
involving
Griffin
access
status
in cases
Jeffreys
Mrs.
of that
while af-
pellate
in
matters. See Grif
civil
fording
money.
it to others with
Illinois, supra;
State
fin
Boddie v.
supra. Recently
Connecticut,
the civil-
“I hold that
denied the
she has been
equal
guaranteed
protection
discarded
criminal distinction has been
laws
when,
corpus,
contin
a man’s
habeas
to her
the State and Federal Con-
penal
institution
ued incarceration
in a
stitutions.”
Bennett, 1961, Likewise,
significant
was at
Smith
issue.
find
the fact that
708, 712,
deeply
6 L.Ed.
pro-
is
365 U.S.
Florida
in this
involved
etc.,
39; Long
ceeding.
assuredly
in-
District
State most
2d
is
17 L.Ed.
in
385 U.S.
87 S.Ct.
terested
terms of
to the extent
finance
Willingham,
10 Cir.
Earnest
Elaine
2d
Dawn
does not
Brown
be-
Bynum
681, 683;
public charge
poor
come
a result of a
as
cf.
parental
Also,
relationship.
on Forfeited
Commission
Connecticut
Rights,
410 F.2d
interested in Dawn Elaine’s future con-
City of Oklahoma
to the extent
also Williams v.
duct
does not en-
See
she
City,
gage
punishable
in
89 S.Ct.
antisocial
conduct.
9, 1969],
And, finally,
regards
surely
The in
[June
L.Ed.2d
as
public
cor
import any
habeas
involves neither
matter of
stant case
severance of
generally
parental
relationship.
Never
pus nor coercive incarceration.19
See
39.01,
(Power
theless,
(1967)
in
another
1A
I feel
this is
F.S.A.
39.11
§§
separate
parents).
carve
should
stanсe where the courts
children from
Just
exception
doctrine that
as
out an
York’s concern
the marital
New
only
relationship distinguishes
Jeffreys
applies
cases.
in criminal
Griffin
actions,
other
note 18.
civil
I feel that Florida’s
See
however,
parties,
appeal.
propriety
an
1A
of the
cute such
F.S.A.
39.14
issue
specifically
Supp., p.
(1) (1969
97).
which
is the Florida
statute
* * *
affected
“child
allows
juvenile
prose-
19. But
fn. 10.
order of the
court”
cf.
relationship
judicial
ticipants
process,
in
parental
interest
proceeding.
in a civil or
case
a criminal
out
the instant
See
carves
Gault,
disputes.
ordinary
In re
private civil
87 S.Ct.
class of
1428, 18 L.Ed.2d
In
re Whit
disregarding,
present purposes,
tington,
in
distinction
the civil-criminal
Griffin-
fully
Judge,
THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLD- GODBOLD, AINSWORTH, DY-
BERG,
ER, SIMPSON, CARS- MORGAN Judges.
WELL, Circuit REHEARING FOR PETITION
ON REHEAR- FOR PETITION
AND BANC
ING EN
PER CURIAM: Rehearing denied The Petition having polled at the
and the
request the members of one of majority of the Circuit Court and a regular Judges active service who it, (Rule having voted favor Procedure; Appellate Federal Rules 12) Pe- Rule Fifth Circuit Local Rehearing En Banc is also
tition for
denied. Judge (dissenting):
RIVES, Circuit Court’s failure to dissent from rehearing.
grant petition for
Sibyl HERRINGTON, Appellant, *17 America,
UNITED STATES of Appellee.
No. 10179. Appeals
United States Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 30, 1969. 31, 1969.
Rehearing Denied Oct.
notes
tive,
change
strike the order of
child,
plaintiffs,
secured
mother and
custody;
and that
this Honorable
Simon, Esq.
im
and
Tobias
services of
grant
Court
other
further re-
such
and
custody
appealed
mediately
order of
lief
as to
be deemed
change.1
proper.”
(R. 88)
require
appellate court rules
Florida’s
alleged
Jurisdiction was
under U.S.C.
adequate
appellant
furnish
claim
1331 and 1343. The substantive
§§
or face
appellate court
for the
record
was
under 42
subsumed
1981-
U.S.C. §§
summary
appeal. Rules
of his
dismissal
1985 and
Fourteenth
Amendment
Rules,
3.6(a),
Appellate
Florida
and
3.3
States Constitution. The
United
Householder, 134
F.S.A.; Brown v.
judges of the Domestic Relations Court
(Fla.App.1962).
801, 802-804
So.2d
hearing
were made
A
defendаnts.
was
of the
aware
Mr. Simon became
When
August 8, 1968,
parties
held on
all
and
compiling
facing
record
him in
choices
agreed
pleadings
there
that no further
custody
appeal
determina-
of the
filed
and
the district
tion,
petition in the Juvenile
he
filed
could,
point,
enter
final
requesting
Relations Court
Domestic
judgment.
August 19, 1968,
On
the dis
or the
Brown
James
that either
trict
judgment
final
entered
on
pay
required to
cost
Florida be
against
plaintiffs,
reporter’s
merits
as
transcription
set
of the court
margin.2
March
petition
on
out
appeal
denied
in the
was
notes.
Notice
“By-
scripts
Appellants’
pending
disposition
us that:
brief informs
of notes
final
stipulation
brief,
mother
between the
of the within cause.
the status
child,
counsel,
father,
quo
custody
Dawn
and their
remains
both
Brown,
remains
child and to the
Elaine
from the order
changing custody pending disposition
pending
outcome
mother
her
Appellees
the within matter.”
August
raise
Moreover,
no
proceeding.
pending
on
just quoted.
toas
the statement
Re-
Domestic
the Juvenile
staying
its order
entered
lations Court
2. “THIS CAUSE came on to
be-
be heard
reporter’s
August
filing
tran-
fore
the Court
on
time
by
August 19, 1968,
graph).
ostensibly
ruling,
juris
was filed
followed
This
September
alloys
jurisdic
cross-appeal
one,
dictional
notice of
doctrines of
(discretion)
proceeding
(power)
1968. Plaintiffs
and abstention
pauperis
prohibiting plain
into
in this Court.
an absolute bar
forma
fully litigating
tiffs from
their constitu
The exercise of
tional
in a
claims
federal forum.
I would
district court is the
considera
threshold
hold
juris
the district court had
majority
relies
tion in this case.
pursuant
diction
to 28 U.S.C.
Fidelity
upon the
doctrine
Rooker v.
its exercise
such
Co., 1923,
Trust
entirely appropriate under the circum
149,