Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”). And to the extent that some of the decisions were not final because proceedings were still pending, the district court would have had to exercise equitable restraint from hearing his claims under the Younger doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Improper Forum The Committee on Admissions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied Rodriguez’s application for bar admission before he filed his federal complaint. The proper forum for review of that decision was the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, not the federal district court. See D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 46(g) (providing for review of Committee decisions); see also Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (<HOLDING>). Preclusion We take judicial notice of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal district court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to review the decision of a district of columbia high court determining application of a local rule to the case before it (B) holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case (C) holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings (D) holding that the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs complaint to the extent they sought review  of the district of columbia court of appeals denial of their petitions (E) holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar
Output (English): holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case