Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a federal suit where the plaintiff was denied the opportunity to present his case in state court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has yet to resolve the question lying at the core of this appeal, which has produced a split amongst this country’s federal judiciary: whether the rights preserved by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution attachs to the RookerFeldman doctrine where the defendant (not the clerk of court) authored a document announcing a hearing date in the State Court, | adding the words, “or when the Judge is available.” While Petitioner waited for a date certain from the judge, defendant, in the absence of Petitioner, convinced the judge to dismiss the matter, nullifying the jury trial that was scheduled. North Carolina Supreme Court refused get involved. The essential issue raised is whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine can bar a federal suit where the Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to present his case in state court. Moreover, the RookerFeldman jurisdictional bar is a narrow one, and was applied too broadly in this case. Defendant was appointed guardian of the Estate of Plaintiff’s mother (Thalia Dukes). Her bank account was more than adequate to | satisfy her bills at the nursing home. Nevertheless, defendant placed a document in front of petitioner asking his permission to sell the many . properties owned by his mother and to waive his right to complain. ut Petitioner refused to sign the document, thus, refusing to waive any of his rights. See App. 4. Petitioner then filed a petition in the state courts requesting an order transferring his mother to petitioner’s home at 820 South 10" Street Wilmington, NC., from Department of Social Services (DSS). A representative was dispatched to inspect the home. In the meantime, after being notified of the transfer request, Defendant filed a petition in state court requesting permission to sell all the properties. His request was granted. Petitioner moved this dispute to the Federal-‘System. Defendant invoked The Rooker-Feldman doctrine that strip federal district and | bankruptcy courts of their subject matter jurisdiction over suits that can be characterized as appeals or reconsideration of state court judgments. However, application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is subject to limitations, especially, as here, where petitioner presented an independent claim, albeit one that denies a legal conclusion that the state court afforded due process in a case where Defendant (alone) knew of the date certain for the evidentiary hearing. If the RookerFeldman doctrine attaches under these circumstances, vital finality interest protected by the Due Process Clause will be undermined. The opinions of the courts below raises an important question of federal law that should be settled by this court. . if