Opinion ID: 2960523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: To summarize: (1) The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar a district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal claim where the federal claim complains of injuries caused by an interlocutory state-court order that was effectively reversed by a superseding state-court order, where the federal claim was brought after the state-court proceeding was dismissed, and where any appeal of the interlocutory order would have been moot. In such circumstances, the plaintiff is not a “state-court loser,” and the federal claim does not “invite district court review and rejection” of the interlocutory state-court order. Accordingly, we VACATE the August 25, 2008 judgment of the District Court insofar as the District Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (2) The August 25, 2008 judgment is AFFIRMED insofar as the District Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims for malicious prosecution. (3) The August 25, 2008 judgment is AFFIRMED insofar as the District Court denied plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to add a § 1983 claim for malicious abuse of civil process. (4) The August 25, 2008 judgment is VACATED insofar as the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. (5) The cause is REMANDED to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 12