For the reasons that follow, the court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint and deny as moot plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief. Mem. of Law at 1. Plaintiff also claims that these sections of the Code violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. Plaintiff next claims that defendants' action in shutting it down constitutes a prior restraint on plaintiff's freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment. Finally, plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants alleging violations of his Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights.
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on three alternative grounds.
Second, defendants contend that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus, the court must first address defendants' argument that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine strips the court of its power to hear this case. See Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. Barnegat Twp. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts cannot entertain constitutional claims that have been previously adjudicated in state court or that are inextricably intertwined with such a state adjudication. The doctrine is based on Congress' determination that lower federal courts may not directly review the decisions of a state court.