Whether the lower courts' decisions should be vacated and the case remanded for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court precedents regarding jurisdictional and immunity issues in civil rights litigation

After Petitioner ’s State Action for declaratory judgment was corruptly terminated without any adjudication of the issues related to the declaration of fact and relief sought therein, Petitioner brought this suit against the Respondents under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of his constitutional rights alleged to have occurred in the State Action by his Amended Complaint. The lower courts concluded that under the Rooker Feldman doctrine the federal courts do not hve jurisdiction to grant any relief requested by Petitioner in his present Amended Complaint. This Court, dispensing with Rooker Feldman, held in Exxon Mobil Corp. v, Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) that federal district courts do have such jurisdiction — but subject to preclusion doctrine. The deprivation of rights are alleged in this suit to have been caused by Respondents as jointly engaged with the state court judge. The courts below on motion to dismiss rejected Petitioner ’s 1983 claim with the finding that the Petitioner cannot allege that the Respondents acted under color of state law. In Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980), this Court held that private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting ‘under color ’ of law for purposes of § 1983 actions. In their motion to dismiss the Respondents raised the defense of total immunity under the 11 iFlorida litigation privilege on the ground that such acts of deprivation are thus barred. However, this Court held in Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) that conduct by persons acting under color of state law that is wrongful under § 1983 cannot be immunized by state law. The question thus presented is whether the lower courts ’ decisions should be vacated and the case remanded for reconsideration in light of Exxon, Dennis v. Sparks , and Howlett v. Rose.* :