Opinion ID: 183858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and have enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Generally, when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). 2 The Rooker-Feldman  abstention doctrine establishes that a federal district court lacks jurisdiction over a litigant’s challenge to a state court decision, including allegations that the state court’s action was unconstitutional. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476, 482-83 & n.16; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415-16. This jurisdictional bar includes claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with a state court judgment and precludes a district court from reviewing decisions of any level of state court. Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d 192, 199 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The doctrine disallows a federal court from reviewing not only claims actually presented to a state court, but also constitutional claims that derive from the state court judgment, “as when success on the federal claim depends upon a determination that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.” Plyler v. Moore, 129 F.3d 728, 731 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.”