Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal-district-court jurisdiction over an action merely because the action alleges federal-constitutional-violations arising-from state-court-proceedings, where the claims-and-issues presented to the federal-district-court for adjudication have not been adjudicated by state-courts

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner's federal complaint alleges Constitutional violations which arose from, but had not been decided in, prior state-court proceedings. The district court dismissed the federal action under the Mooker-Feldman doctrine, which provides that federal district courts lack ; Jurisdiction to decide claims and issues already decided by state courts. However, Petitioner asserted that state courts had not decided any of his federal claims or ancillary issues, and nothing to the contrary appears in the record. Yet the Ninth : Circuit nonetheless affirmed dismissal under , Rooker-Feldman, holding that Petitioner’s action was a forbidden de facto appeal of unspecified state-court decisions and raised claims that were “inextricably intertwined” with those decisions. The Ninth Circuit identified no state-court decisions and stated no fact about Petitioner’s federal action other than that the action alleged Constitutional violations “arising from” state-court proceedings ; involving the estate of Petitioner’s father. In such circumstances application of Rooker, Feldman conflicts with jurisprudence of this Court and of other Circuit Courts. The question presented is: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars . federal district-court jurisdiction over an action merely because the action alleges federal Constitutional violations “arising from” state-court proceedings, where the claims and issues presented to the federal district court for adjudication have not been adjudicated by state courts. i