determine whether the plaintiff's building was quote a quote an unsafe building the hammond board of public works and safety violated the plaintiff's due process rights by ignoring for example the statutory legislative scheme that indiana has a knack to for determining whether a property via the leads a local zoning density ordinance no other words at this proceeding the city of hammond was arguing that mr andretti's five unit apartment building had actually been constructed as a single family residence and in support of that theory they put on expert testimony regarding the matter of construction and framing of the house and it's the plaintiff's position in the federal lawsuit that an indiana trial a federal rule of civil procedure twelve b one finding that the air feldman doctrine precluded the district courts subject matter jurisdiction because the the matter had proceeded that the district court improperly applied what is known as the inextricably intertwined doctrine of rooker feldman interestingly i'm not certain that the inextricably intertwined doctrine should have survived the united states supreme court opinion in skinner versus switzer in two thousand and eleven because in that instance justice ginsburg writing for the majority conceded that district courts had expanded the application of rooker feldman well beyond the limits and scope of the original doctrine and also in two thousand and fourteen writing for a panel of this court judge easterbrook in richardson versus coke law firm at seven hundred and sixty eight th and thirty two also indicated that the inextricably intertwined standard had been rejected by all times it had been appealed to united states supreme court and th judge judge easterbrook indicated at what we really ought to do is return to the doctor in of rooker feldman as announced in the saudi basic oil ect on mobile litigation in two thousand and four and that was only several years after the skinner vs switzer which also rejected the inexplicably intertwined analysis to determine if a state court proceeding through a criminal probable cause hearing there had been discovery criminal charge in other words a state and indiana state judicial officer had undertaken review in forstmann action by the city of ham and then appeal on a direct appeal which while the indiana court of appeals did not say that the indiana administrative procedures act flies to the force panoply of his rights because he is the one that instituted the state court proceeding to refuse an administrative agency in force in action and go back to the feldman  for sixty us or seventy six dollars where the united states supreme court indicated that we should focus on the character of the prissy thing in and forcing the ricker feldman doctrine in swartz the a the character of the proceeding was a very narrow and limited review of administrative proceeding that occurred so the character of the proceeding is differentiated because and drafty was not charged in state court with the crime or importance violation i really wish he had been because i believe that in order to enforce the unsafe building law the city of hammond must obtain a determination from an indiana state judge that his building was originally constructed and unlawfully converted because that's how indiana enforces the zoning density codes are the zoning density ordinances it requires a trial court determination that the building in fact was unlawfully converted i would ask if there are no other questions i would like to at least indiana unsafe building along it was not a zoning proceeding and the arguments with regard to whether or not zoning was pertinent to this particular matter was decisively rejected by both the indiana trial court the lake superior court and the indiana court of appeals to whom this matter was then appeal the  opportunity to litigate the claims which he has now advancing and a significant portion of judge springman order is directed to showing that in fact he did have a reasonable decision which narrows the rockefeller and doctrine to essentially its core that it applies when the plaintiff is a state court loser asking the federal lower courts to review the plaintiffs was injured by the administrative action but he shared the opportunity to review all of the concerns that he had including constitutional issues on the state challenge action is the administrative action here that's correct that's a court action well he's challenging every aspect of the review and that's the reason the district court said that in this particular case the fact that you allege that i had a constitutional violation under nine hundred and eighty three because of the actions that were taken in the state proceedings now beca argument which is here in iraq well mr jenson let me let me interject this the appeal came from the safety a board's decision and by statute went directly to court it's h the indiana supreme court where a transfer was denied and then an appeal to the united states supreme court where a petition for writ of search you're all right was a was denied so that after all of that is over he then returns to a federal court and says that i was mike my constitutional rights were violated because of the proceedings that took place all the way along in the in the state court it wasn't just before the administrative agency it was before the proceedings in the lake superior pork and it was with regard to the indiana order of appeals so it's a thorough going to tack on the entire statutory framework by which this is handled and it was that the judge was wringman addressed when she concluded that number one you had the opportunity to raise all of these and you did coming back into court and saying to do you have a constitutional right doesn't change or alter the fact that you had the opportunity to raise all of these all the way along the line on the state an administrative order such as what we have here even when that administrative order is appealable to the courts through judicial review and and such an appeal has been taken and lost the  point just the injury that's being claimed is the injury from the administrative court or not that court order well i think i think that that's a fundamental disagreement because as i read feldman itself constitutional claims which are inextricably intertwined with state court judgments and there are multiple ones in this case negate a federal district court's jurisdiction and that's what our court  dr feldman was limited in the exxon mobil case only because there was an ongoing state court proceeding at the time the federal court action was filed and as a result the court the supreme court was filed in the federal court and it was for that reason that all of this goes what they have by the court of by the by the district court to reach a conclusion as to whether or not under the existing  authority here which includes gary and gals and schwartz whether or not he has satisfied his standard in order to somehow or another  or get around and work or feldman and the conclusion was that you cannot get around for a feldman in a situation like this otherwise you're going to have a parallel that report action which is nothing more than a  bite at the state court apple and for that reason and that's the reason judge spring been denied all of this but to say that the two supreme court cases have changed the basic analysis is i think a little wide of the mark particularly when you have the opportunity to raise all of the evidentiary issues and all of the constitutional issues ask the state court level and offer nothing new other than a claim for limitation the witnesses the state courts seem to indicate in the record that there may be a limitation on who can be called referring to a judge wow and the state court said that there would be no new evidence if there was an issue with regard to that an appeal should have followed because there were a number of issues that were raised with the indiana court of appeals with regard to that but that issue was never appealed to the indiana court of appeals now after we've gone through all of that we then come back on the federal side and say we now want to raise that which strikes me as nothing more than a collateral attack on the indiana state court judge thank you sir right thank you ms makes you and thank you mr jensen  asserts that i am seeking a nd bite at an apple but in the state court proceeding given the limitations imposed upon the plaintiffs of that in spite of the trial court i was ordinances as a mechanism under the indiana administrative procedures act to try and slip into one of the full were bases upon which a state trial court can overturn an administrative action i'm sorry your honor if you raise it on appeal i attempted to assert on appeal that the in effect of inforce meant of a local density zoning ordinance meant that right i've i've i had that reviewed by the indiana cook of appeals but it's not been litigated your honor because in the federal court complaint i assert something called the fast track program by which the city of hammond we assert has targeted section eight and low income landlords when force these unsafe building law against landlords who rent to tenants who are low income in neighborhoods where the mayor doesn't want low income residents with that i see my time has expired and if there are no more questions i think the court time all right thank you very much ed thanks to both counsel the case is taking your advice mountain concludes and the courts calendar for