Whether the Ninth Circuit may ignore and refuse to follow this Court's precedent in application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which requires that the federal court determine whether the federal civil-rights Complaint seeks 'review and rejection' of the underlying state-court judgments

QUESTION PRESENTED The Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit affirmed an order of the District Court of Nevada, dismissing a federal civil-rights Complaint made under 42 U.S.C. §1983, solely on the ground that the federal civil-rights action was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The civil-rights Complaint alleged that the Defendant Nevada Supreme Court had denied Petitioner his civil rights during the course of underlying state actions, and sought recovery solely on that basis. The civilrights Complaint did not seek “review and rejection” of the judgments of the state actions, the criterion for application of Rooker-Feldman established by Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 US. 280 (2005). Accordingly, the question presented is: ' Whether the Ninth Circuit may ignore and refuse to follow this Court’s precedent in application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which requires that the federal court determine whether the federal civilrights Complaint seeks “review and rejection” of the underlying state-court judgments, and on that basis : affirm the dismissal of the civil-rights Complaint. This Question goes to the very heart of this Court’s authority as the highest court of the land. The Ninth Circuit, both in panel and en banc, was made fully aware of this Court’s controlling precedent, but refused not only to follow Exxon but also to even acknowledge a en ee Be 1 2 . ii QUESTION PRESENTED -— Continued its existence. The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to follow Exxon signals its rejection of this Court’s jurisprudence on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, reverting to the time when lower courts could avoid the substance of a : ; civil-rights complaint by improperly applying the jurisdictional Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Ninth Circuit’s action also serves to defeat the policy of Congress and this Court to encourage persons to vindicate their civil rights. ; iii . PARTIES : Gregory Garmong, an individual, Plaintiff and Petitioner. a The State of Nevada, ex rel. The Nevada Supreme Court, and Justice James W. Hardesty, Justice Kristina Pickering, Justice Mark Gibbons, Justice Michael A. ; Cherry, Justice Michael Douglas, Justice Nancy M. Saitta, and Justice Ron D. Paragruire, in their official , and individual capacities, Defendants and Respondents. There are no corporate parties involved in this matter. iv: .