in this case that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in granting both of those motions they ask a question i think that some point in your argument could you please address whether we under that doctrine inexplicably intertwined we had a negligent disclosure issue and we had a civil conspiracy issue now but i want to bring up the doctrine of the law the case because this case this case is you know  has been up on a few before on the qualified immunity issue and in that case in that decision this court specifically addressed the issue of whether or not mr murphy's limited privacy interest which is the law of the case it is does not require this court to review anything happened in the state court proceedings says that first of all the elements of that are whether it was clearly whether your decision the earlier decision was clearly erroneous and that's not the case in the second factor you look at is whether or not argument the reason i say that is that the district court construed the defense motion for summary judgment as a motion for leave to file a supplemental answer and the court subsequently granted that motion recognizing race judicata as a valid affirmative defense therefore the question before the court is whether the district court abused its discretion and entering that finding and making  and if the court is aware the standard nice circuit for abuse of discretion is whether this court is convinced firmly that the district court allowing amendment is beyond the pale of reasonable justification under the circumstances the state court case and i believe may two thousand and one as the district court pointed out the first docket entry after that verdict was the motion for summary judgment we raised is where the district court's decision can be affirmed on any valid grounds and it can be affirmed on the record feldman grounds also because the state court jury decided the question that the plaintiff is presenting in the ninth circuit th court jury returned a defense verdict for the state defendants finding there was no civil conspiracy to violate mr murthy is fourth in fourteenth amendment rights for the ninth circuit to again address that issue would there would be no jurisdiction to hear this and that would be the same for the qualified immunity argument which i'll just touch on briefly based on the division one opinion in murphy v state which is one fifteen washington appellate to ninety seven the issues legal questions raised by the plaintiff were fully addressed or fully addressed by washington along that opinion that opinion affirms that washington law gives the border pharmacy and law enforcement the authority to inspect prescription data the court correctly pointed out that this authority has existed in our state constitution and article twenty section two for years since the beginning of statehood practically that's several states statutes grant that authority that there is no is whether or not if these statutes exist if the pharmacy board has this authority if law enforcement has this authority does that authority run afoul of the privacy hearing t's in the state and federal constitution is in the murky decision points out that it does not so i think what in essence can be said about this case is this the point is the master of his claims the plaintiffs chose to commence two parallel lawsuit in the state and federal system alleging identical facts identical alleged wrongs and identical damages he'll needed from his state court claim an actual  identity cation of section one hundred eighty three the civil rights act but he allegedly his state court claimed several conspiracy to violate civil rights based on the same facts and conduct leading to the same alleged that they're raised in federal court the more reasons that i think your honor what rooker feldman precludes is the federal court from deciding any issue that is the same but also those which are inextricably intertwined with those which are decided in state court now here we had two legal theories in state court we had negligent disclosure which is not a legal theory in state of washington and the division one opinion points that they reversed that and vacated that and the second theory was civil conspiracy and civil conspiracy doesn't exist by itself there has to be a wrong to float the conspiracy but as i pointed out previously conspiracy i guess a court case there were what was the same pattern of then yes well in the state court actually the plaintiffs sued the state of washington in   there is an identity of the issue is the same alleged rights were allegedly infringed and there's the same transaction or nucleus of fast and all these are grounds for finding race judicata and what men people for conspiracy to individual actors and in fact these actors were all employees of pharmacy boards or could be a conspiracy of your coworkers the executive director the chief investigator and invest court the state court jury instructions speak to these people agreeing to violate civil rights and conducting a warrantless search and seizure and unlawful disclosure of the fourteenth amendment and the not identified as ninety three and i raised that repeatedly but it was it was their fourth amendment yesterday yes it is throughout in fact i hope this is part of the record the state court complaint and the federal complaint are nearly identical the actions running concurrently litigated this case for years and no one raised the objection of other action pending now the river feldman doctrine deals with whether or not th has to review something that the state court has done the issues now whether the issues are the same the question is whether you have to review something that was done in the state court and you're not reviewing anything because you already decided these issues the negligent disclosure issue has nothing to do with whether or not there was a deliberate deliberate indifference with respect to the disclosure of healthcare information to the county officials by the state defendants it's a different issue different test negligent disclosure even though it was found to exist in the state says that the cause of action doesn't exist any longer and that's currently the law so there's nothing to review there the search and seizure issue that was part of the civil conspiracy issue there's nothing to review there because you've already decided and so if the test is not whether the issues are the same whether or not this court has to review something done by the state court there's nothing for you to review you've already decided  and i really don't know what else to add to that argument other than you've already learned and sent me back to the books to read worker and three feltman again knowing if you'll trust me that the only issue is you have to review litigation but it's one of the questions that we may have to decide if we reach it's correct you need to look at the our briefing and and it's pretty clear that mr murphy would be present has been prejudiced