Can the Court exercise jurisdiction to remedy violations of the petitioner's constitutional rights?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Can this Court exercise jurisdiction to remedy violations of the petitioner’s Frist, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, including due process and lack ofaccess to the courts, resulting from the state court judge’s independent and unlawful actions? Il. Seeking clarification regarding the application of the RookerFeldman doctrine in cases transferred from state court to federal court. Given the affirmance of the district court's decision under Rule 58 by the Court of Appeals, and the circumstances surrounding the closure of state court cases initiated by the appellant, which were not adjudicated as 'losers' but rather closed due to the Estate's closure, what criteria or circumstances determine when the doctrine is applied in such transfers? Il. Did the district court properly consider the circumstances surrounding the closure of the state court cases initiated by the appellant, noting that they were not adjudicated as "losers" but rather closed due to the Estate's closure? Furthermore, was the district court's dismissal decision mindful of the ongoing medical review processes and unresolved matters within these state court cases, which were pivotal to the appellant's claims? IV. How could the district court make a determination based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Rule 58 without affording the petitioner the opportunity for discovery, the trial process, and their 7th Amendment right to a jury trial, particularly when these rights were denied during the pretrial stage? . V. Whether this court should grant the writ to prevent further miscarriages of justice by providing clarification on the scope of the i Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which has led to conflicting decisions among Circuits Courts? VI. Does the petitioner qualify as a'state court loser' under the RookerFeldman doctrine, considering the potential reopening of the state court case (probate case on estates) and the fact that an Estate is not required to be opened to pursue medical malpractice or federal claims, and thus warrant review by this Court? VIL Is the State of Indiana's requirement for the opening ofan Estate to pursue medical malpractice or federal claims a significant factor in assessing the dismissal of the appellant's case by the district court, considering the appellant's specific circumstances regarding the guardianship case and pending legal matters? Vill. Can acourt, upon motion to reconsider or rehear, upon its own motion or the suggestion of a party, vacate, set aside, amend, or modify a ruling entered in the same term of court, considering that such matters are still in progress? IX. Canacourt, upon motion to reconsider or rehear, whether initiated by its own volition or at the suggestion of a party, vacate, set aside, amend, or modify a ruling entered in the same term of court, taking into account that ongoing matters are still in progress? il