court has asked us to brief and address today fall into two main categories of the st dealing with whether ms weber's appeal is timely it is and the nd whether the district court erred in abstaining due to the state court child one this court is urged that the finality requirement requires that there be an order that leaves quote nothing further for the district court to do that's exactly what the docket entry did what's the what is th that was doing was referring back to the order of dismissal without prejudice which said that there were thirty days in which to file an amended complaint under which a sick we don't treat these clerk entered till he orders there's if we look at how we do sic talked about it doesn't this fit right into the utility event category and not text order under the circumstances this case no your honor the docket entry was made only one day after some of the defendants in this case filed a letter request that the court dismissed the case with prejudice i think that's exactly what the court was purporting to do with the court didn't do it right the clerk did it it's a clerk entry it says case terms there's is there any indication that the court acted upon this and not that this was just what would a sick says which is utility then that is the clerk acting to clear or clean up a docket  well st of all the the fact that it was in response to to to a letter asking the court to dismiss the case with prejudice a bit further your honor i would say that would a sick concerns whether one of these utility entries can constitute a separate order under rule fifty eight the question here is different whether it counts as a quote final decision under section one thousand two hundred and ninety one i think it's a helpful distinction they could call it there's finality and there's entry under rule fifty eight but that seems to cut against your rule fifty eight arguments elsewhere in the brief i mean i think we st have to figure out that there's something final here and we've got this issue about the the june one is a dismissal without prejudice now we get to it's the time of blame to amend but we don't have anything after that we don't have we have this question about whether to use this gentleman complaint rule but i understand your arguments are trying to distinguish w final what's your argument that it can be final even though it's not something by the corps not signed not being entered well i think if if the docket entry doesn't constitute a final order then there are a excuse me a final decision then there was never a final decision and in this case and if i may bring up how about your alternative argument i thought you had an alternative argument which is there's a final decision in passage of time and her decision appeal rather than to a man no your honor under w r s this this court has said that parties need a definitive way of knowing if and when their case has been dismissed december of two thousand and sixteen where she thought when she filed her nd notice of appeal to stand on her complaint and and bring the case before this court there had to have been a final order right you can't have it both ways either there is a final order or there isn't a final order if there isn't a final order then she's here too soon because there's no finale if there is a final order then the final order must be the dismissal ready that occurred on june th without prejudice as ripe with how you got to a rd way which is there's no final order but we can appeal respectfully your honor it's not having it both ways this court has held that as a matter of efficiency plaintive can decide to stand on a complaint rather than sort of going through the extra step of true having a dismissal with that in the context of a final order right you stand on the complaint because what happened in the district court was the district court said i'm dismissing this case but i'll allow you to amend if you want to that's what the district court said here why isn't june nine in effect the final order i mean it seems like the best you can argue for is it didn't become final until she chose not to appeal i mean chose not to amend but why isn't a dismissal even if it's a dismissed without prejudice the event you have to tie your boat well st of all it seems like that was a you know if that's the case it was something that was not only confusing to the pro se plaintiff here but also to defendant's counsel who filed letters with this court stating that the st notice of appeal was premature danger here if we go ahead and turn a bunch of these into final orders were are we going to box people out of court by being too late if we what's the downside if we are on the side of seeing these aren't final orders we're gave you two things and you say that's the best practice i've got to keep up with you which is the best practice for the for the court to enter a separate order of dismissal with prejudice to make it crystal clear to let against and to give a bright line that this is when your deadline to appeal starts to run this is one hundred and thirty day clock starts to run surely that's the best practice but is the answering the question about what's the biggest downside here which is which the business the biggest downside is certainly that that litigants don't have this court seven w r as a clear signal about what's going on and so they run the risk of being on timely because they're not sure whether they need to file or whether they're notice of appeal is premature so that that's the big downside risk there's no downside risk in my view to requiring courts to enter a separate notice of dismissal with prejudice which was never done here judge to order said there's a dichotomy here either it has to be final or it's not fine i'm wondering about how the stand on the complaint was operates because that's that's a met it's a judge created rule is that something that's discretionary we've found cases in which this court has taken jurisdiction because if it i haven't found any cases in which we've said something was untimely or rejected a case because if it is it are you aware of any authority that that might be  discretionary i'm not have been it aware of any authority whether or not it's discretionary but i think it's a permissive rule what the court said what this court said in one of those cases was that that they would just be forcing the leg against to go to an extra step if they rejected the the appeal and force them to go to the additional step but i don't think that means that litigant should have to appeal from a dismissal without prejudice because that doesn't give them a clear signal that their time has become to run it but the rules rule fifty eight dollars in bodies it addresses the issue you're dealing with doesn't it rule fifty eight dollars says you if there's no separate order entered that definitively says you're done well then we'll give you another one hundred and fifty dollars days in which to file your appeal that and that is the basis on which the rules signal it's maybe there could be some vagueness here but if you blow it because you're unsure there's your window yeah yeah yeah that is the rule yes and your honor we explain in our brief and this is our our rd independent argument for why the appeal is timely that if if she gets the the one hundred and fifty days and she certainly does then this appeal was timely because you know under our calculation that takes her to is there that time problem though in that  time should run from when the dismissal was with prejudice and it was was not with prejudice on june th how do you get around the entry in the languages entry in the civil docket how how does that work i mean maybe it does work maybe you maybe the argument is when this this judge made rule about standing on your complaint is operative you have to add thirty days to the entry in the docket but but is there any authority for that approach because that's the approach urging all of us yes yes i am and again you know the relevant entry here i think you know there isn't one that says there is a dismissal with prejudice but that's when the that it lacks appellate jurisdiction who many of the reasons which your honor to question him i am sorry what's the final order here the final order your honor would be the thirty days after the june th that would be the final order it was in conjunction if we look at the bait off case from this court it is your position is that we should give them thirty days and we should consider that thirty days later july night to be the final  effectively the date of final order well i'm going off it but i just heard well i'm going off the consistency with the bail case i believe that in the conjunction with miss webber standing on our complaint  july nine does and you move that out to early december to say that the time then does then beginning in that early december timeframe order for purposes of or thirty days would begin that would have begun i'm july th they have to work together don't they i mean there is you concede wouldn't you that there's there's no separate order as envisioned by rule fifty eight there was this memorandum opinion dismissed with prejudice on ricker feldman or younger but there's no separate order saying dismissal that's why we're here right and that's when rule fifty eight kicks in so it's rule fifty eight kicks in and july is the day she should be timely shinji but for the fact that she chose to stand on a complaint so we've got this question the cases you cite are ones in which we found a jurisdiction because someone had stood on the complaint yes but are you aware of any authority in which we found something was untimely and rejected jurisdiction because someone had earlier stood on the complaint i can't find authority like that of you and your honor i have been just so interested because you're asking whether there's  authority with regard to when someone chooses to stand on a complaint we clearly time except standing on the complaint as an efficiency based jurisdictional basis or even though it doesn't comply with the formal rules but must we are you aware of any case that said we had to do it or we rejected a case as untimely because someone had eroni asli stood on her complaint as here well no your honor i'm not aware of that however if we if we did move to that then it would create i think even more uncertainty i think that there's two avenues to go either it once she chooses to stand on a complaint that is at that time that's when we have the quote unquote for purposes of the wool the final act the final order however let's say that she she doesn't choose to stand on her complaint will that's when we'll fifty it would kick in so then you have two very definitive a vans where litigants can know because that's really why we're here is we want to make sure people litigants in the rd circuit understand what's the definitive thing here that makes it unequivocally clear to litigants is there anything in a record here that would avoid you know prevent any possible confusion i mean but the point is not as you to speak for just ask knowledge that the record shows there was at least some confusion on behalf of some defendants because there's a letter there or letter saying we would like to have a definitive ruling so they didn't think there was a definitive r well your honor again i think it would we want to keep this into what it was objective so yes if they did and if there was a little research done with bait often hagan from this court then they would have known that once she chose to stand on her complaint which was directly the situation and the bait off and hitting cases then my co counsel would have known and miss webber that what she did was the finity well what what are we to do with or if anything think about our own clerk just writing to the parties and in effect saying there may be a jurisdictional problem here because there's not a final order well which seems to have been what prompted ms webber to withdraw her appeal i mean this is that a historical fact that she feature in our thinking on this case well i think your honor too to that comment i think that what's not getting enough play factually in this case is this court's clerk october th two thousand and sixteen member letter which says to ms weber you know what we're no longer listing it as possible jurisdictional dismissal and what's interesting is twenty four days later miss webber knowing that that i know you'd rather talk about the october salar but i want to talk about the other one that's why i asked the question about it sure if we're if we're trying to make sure that people understand definitively what their rights are and they don't rights to review because of confusion should we do we have to be concerned that we may have added to confusion might we be a stall might we have represented innocence that we're not treating it is standing on the complaint as a final i would say absolutely not for two reasons your honor one because it says it's listed for possible dismissal and i would also for the nd reason i would ask your honour's we think your honor said in the order we can look to the future future neck case in  case which both kind of instr in it but we don't we don't say to litigants to specially pro se litigants hey we might dismiss this for lack of jurisdiction but you should go research law on the th circuit the figure out whether we really mean this understood but have looking at for those cases as i think borrows it frames the issue pretty pretty precisely which is you can choose to surrender or you can choose to do your research and fight it just sais the court notice said it's impossible and then in fact they said the october th letter tried to that so here mr weber chose to surrender that's not your honour's fault that's not our fault she chose a surrender so now she voluntarily would drill it which she did not have to do and she needs to stand in a complaint if we don't do that he needs to complain ok let me ask it this way sharp if in the course of those events we were to look at that and to say it may it may appear that she had thought she would stand on her complaint but we pushed back and she said well i guess i'm not going to stand like yes would we be in the posture of then again having no final order if she reading into her actions and intent if we look at it and we say well it looked like she was going to stand on her complaint but we pushed back a little and she said well withdraw i'm not going to stand on that complaint then we back to you know final order and premature appeal right i don't believe so your honor because again why not over for two reasons your honor because she had already done that in so they'll fight the hypothetical here no no i'm not hypothetical isn't free for you to change the the question is if we were to view her withdrawal as a decision not to stand on her complaint is do we have this goes back to judge beeves is point yes we have the discretion then to say well looks like she's not stand on our complaint and if we do have that discretion doesn't that mean there's no final word no your honor because then we would go we would then kick back to rule fifty eight dollars which would be one hundred and fifty dollars days from the june th order which would carry out your june th yes yes there is no june th or there's a june th opinion that's the whole point this is not an order that says there's not a separate order that says dismiss there's a june nine opinion dismissing still be in my act a pickle it's a non final order you're turning it into a final order in order to make your argument i'm trying to get you to stick with this hypothetical yes or if we look at it that way the way i've described then june nine is a non a final order entered if it is non final if we do not treat or are not bound to treat her statement as standing on the complaint in judge jordan's hypo yes she's i think i'm going to stand on the complaint oh  changed my mind if i mean maybe your position is that's irrevocable once you say you're standing on your complaint but in these hypo if it's not irrevocable there's no authority that says it's irrevocable she takes it back there's no final order at all or the other alternative can understand what when the time to appeal would run then we would have to look to will fifty eight which would be one hundred and fifty dollars days so once so then she would have thirty days from the november sixty i think if we're looking for something that decisis of people are not confused jets seems a little odd to adopt a rule that very clearly was in the face of her confusion and not what she manifested her misunderstanding possibly induced by her clerk's  office it's a hard thing because you want a bright line but i'm not sure how will fifty eight is giving the bright line when we don't have some of it's a final judgment in the st place but maybe maybe maybe we should be giving you a few minutes here to talk about the next on is just no longer good law isn't the problem it's not your honor for two reasons st to address your honor's initial point in great western this court had said that inextricable intertwining was not a separate punk but it's a descriptive label and so i like to go independent meaning as it has no independent meaning correct that has to be met however it's still a descriptive label and useful honor it's helpful i think it's a tool in this case as a district court found because many of miss webber's claims are so riddled with you know even the ones that your honors may on the surface find to be worse appear to be independent there's so little with the one thing which is the removal of our child dead many right but not all of them challenge the judgment i mean the stuff about the conspiracy to deprive of a fair trial or praying in hebrew or speaking spanish these are they're separable i mean some of them might be but not all in the district court just lump them all together isn't that something that needs to be sorted out more carefully without unlawfully remove her child everything is divulging into the removal of her child here's what you do make this argument but we have some law that says you know if if claims are so fanciful that amount to being insubstantial then we don't have subject matter jurisdiction and the notion that all the judges in new jersey governor christie and senator menendez and everybody else is out to get or you know all all due respect to her i understand you've got some strong feelings here but that's those are the kinds of claims that we've looked at before and said you know we just you know there's nothing it was bad and we we  don't even dignify it by exercising jurisdiction i'm wondering why that argument never emerged at least as to the conspiracy well your honor i would i would say two points on that as my time is running out we can look no further than the great western which ironically in explaining when work or film want to apply it use this very example of a father terminating is right and then bringing federal substantive claim which is claims which is exactly what mr weber is doing on a  no your honor miss webber's claims i think is is more akin to the wolves were unfair the process was unfair because i was as opposed to the walls or the process was a conspiracy and it was unfair to some of her claims and i'm frank to say you know i spent time on the complaint trying to understand what's going on as i did to your  that we do have an obligation to construe liberally because it was a pro se filing but some of those claims they don't look like they flow from the state court judgement which is a crucial element of recur feldmann they seem like they're statements about now whether whether we've got subject managers fiction or there's munich news or it's rightly here or not it just didn't seem like it was rycroft feldman land because there are statements about hey this person committed malpractise that doesn't have to do with a state where there was a fraud on and then have to deal with the state court judge or busy i was wrong because of this action by just other state actors not because of the state court judgment but things preceding the state court judge and so he couldn't be wrong as fluid from the state court judgement they were prior to our aren't those things that that a district court ought to look at in the st instance and and actually and and folks ought at engage on and say well it's not work or feldman your honor but there's absolute judicial immunity for judgement roque and or that's not ricker feldman but there's no subject matter r my time is up if i may respond i wish you would ok your honor with regard to it so the answer would be in this case no it's not necessary so your honor what a therapist malpractise that was already considered by judgment said rooker feldman that's the problem right yes but isn't the purpose of worker foemen to prevent the federal court judge checky from sitting as a state appellate court so then in reality if you're going to warn the therapist malpractise you're telling judgment grogan that well you credibility findings on this on this therapist and the process that you reviewed are incorrect in so that's why i'm saying it's it's secure issues with the supreme court's exxon mobil case and you would like rigor feldman to be interpreted more broadly  as great western gave an example nine cases where a litigant like miss weber is merely attempting to get she's filing in the state appellate court she's filing in a federal court she wants to buy to the apple this is precisely where worker feldman was meant to you thank you your honor if i may pick up where the sort of the last colloquy left off and talk a little bit about how narrow the brooker feldman doctrine is post exxon mobile from the supreme court in two thousand five the nd element of worker feldman is whether the plaintiff is complaining of injuries caused by the state court judgement the test is not whether the plaintiff has injuries caused by the state court judgement i think it's fair to say that's the case in all of these reported cases we've discussed in our briefs but that this court has made very clear in great western mining that record feldman doesn't apply if if the plaintiffs is lodging a complaint against a violation of some independent right understood let's let me ask you a question though about assuming you're right and this this ricker feldman and younger were both erroneous bases on which to dismiss this case and assume you were right that we have appellate jurisdiction here are we free to ourselves as a matter of law look at the complaint and say look relates to get have a plain simple statement of your claim this is the for this this one hundred and fifty dollars plus page complaint which is you know quoting from letters  excerpting from multiple cases and giving us in effect headnotes kind of a stream of consciousness of the frustrations she felt in the she was clearly frustrated and angry in the system and that comes through very clearly but it's definitely not a clear and concise statement of her claims are we free to say ok we got your stiction but we don't need to send this back to the district court if nothing else this fails under twelve b six years and state claims and she's put on a complaint so we're done here respectfully your honor i you know i don't agree that the complaint isn't clear i've i've read it you know thoroughly myself  i'm not sure whether there's authority one way or another on whether it would have to be remanded or whether this court could could just as a matter of law evaluate the sufficiency of the complaint you know because that wasn't one of the five issues that  but you know regardless i think as it affects the issues we're talking about there are substantial allegations here that for example the state of new jersey had inadequate policies that defendants made baseless and retaliatory claims that influenced the state court judgment and that there was a failure to investigate allegations of child abuse and these are exactly the kinds of claims that this court has held and reported