jurisdictional question for that reason the three doctrines on which the district court relied are in opposite and the district court should be reversed apple user conceded that rigor feldman and younger extension do not apply in this case  does not apply in this place in this case for two primary reasons that dr myers both that a party raising the same claims that he raised before or claims he could have raised and that there has been a final ballot judgment on the merits here in either of those requirements has been satisfied to start with the second the superior court dismissed mr jackson's claims lack of subject matter jurisdiction it's obviously not a decision on the merits adelies are trying to invoke a narrow exception from this court's decision in g s court versus united states but that exception does not apply here mr jackson is not asking the federal court to second guess whether in fact the superior court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims instead he's asking the federal court and the federal district court had dismissed that claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that narrow jurisdictional holding would not preclude a state court down the road from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over the same claim that's essentially what's happening here the severe court ot it does not apply to moving on to that reason in a superior court complaint mr jackson was raising a straightforward challenge to the district of columbia's decision not to let him sit for the bar exam in his federal complaint he's raising a different claim and i would like to draw the court's attention to a few paragraphs in the federal complaint that i think a limit that in particular paragraphs there's two paragraphs there's two paragraph four but the second paragraph or paragraph five of paragraph six make it clear that in his federal complaint mr jackson is raising a greater constitutional challenge to the procedures the district court has put in place for appealing a denial of a bar admissions application and that kind of broader constitutional challenge does not fall within the scope of pressure particularly i'd like to draw the court's attention to pad the language at the end of paragraph five that says that this is the district of columbia has a process that keeps the courts in washington favoring the mayor's office one hundred percent of the time so essentially what mr jackson is arguing in his federal complaint is that there is an unfair thumb on the scale that means that applicants who wish to protest a certain decision of the committee on admissions do not enjoy due process in raising that appeal specifically he challenges the lack of hearing he challenges the refusal of the district to give him any discovery and he chooses the inefficient process by which he was willing to re with your analysis what happens w do that but particularly where it hasn't been briefed where mr jackson could perhaps be appointed counsel below or be given the opportunity to amend his complaint the better course would be for this court to remain and for the district court to assess the claims in the first terms of paragraph six of the complaint where he does the six and fourteenth amendments count or there were allegations there are very similar to the fourteenth amendment complaint that is in the superior court and i in this complaint and he would not have standing to even agree with what about the notion that we're whatever claims he's racing the place to bring them is before the court of appeals right they have exclusive jurisdiction over the source only only as mr