Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal court review of state court foreclosure judgments when a plaintiff alleges constitutional violations related to the foreclosure process

No question identified. : APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI This Application is made to the Honorable Elena Kagan, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, see S.Ct.R. 30.3 (hereafter “Rule”). On September 30, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied Pro Se Petitioner Peyman Roshan’s (“Roshan”) motion to intervene in this case. Searle v. Allen, et. al, Ninth Circuit Case No. 24-4819. Roshan’s due date for a petition for certiorari challenging that order is December 29, 2025. He hereby requests an extension of that date by 60 days to February 27, 2026. The Searle panel held that Searle’s claims directly attacking the state court foreclosure judgment—on the grounds that the foreclosure violated the United States and Arizona Constitutions because it was a taking without a legitimate public purpose or constituted an excessive fine—were barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine because Searle complained of injuries caused by the foreclosure judgment and invited the district court to review and reject that judgment. Searle, Dkt. 61 at 14-16 (applying the test from Exxon Mobil Corp. y. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). See Searle Opinion in