Has the court of appeals failed to exercise the federal jurisdiction given it by Congress under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1831 & 1343(a)(3) & (4), by refusing to acknowledge that petitioner's complaint plausibly alleged extrinsic fraud by respondents in obtaining the state court judgment against him, allegations which invoke the fraud exception to the Court's Rooker-Feldman doctrine and establish subject matter jurisdiction to hear this controversy?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Has the court of appeals failed to exercise the federal jurisdiction given it by Congress under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1831 & 1343(a)(3) & (4), by refusing to acknowledge that petitioner’s complaint plausibly alleged extrinsic fraud by respondents in obtaining the state court judgment against him, allegations which invoke the fraud exception to the Court’s Rooker-Feldman doctrine and establish subject matter jurisdiction to hear this controversy? 2. Should this Court resolve the split of authority among the Circuits about whether there exists a fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the effect of such extrinsic fraud on the plaintiffs federal action?