from the judgment. For instance, it is inapplicable when the federal claim alleges “a prior injury that a state court failed to remedy.” Centres, Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, Wis., 148 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir.1998); see also Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 1999). Mr. Johnson alleges that he has been injured by the court’s failure to issue him a tax deed. This alleged injury stems directly from the Illinois circuit court’s entry of the agreed order; it is that very order that deprived Mr. Johnson of the right to receive the tax deed and relieved the defendants of any obligation to deed the property to him. In essence, Mr. Johnson is complaining because the defendants are following the circuit court’s order. See Ritter v. Ross, 992 F.2d 750, 754-55 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); see also Holt, 408 F.3d at 336. It is of no
holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff holding that the rookerfeldman doctrine excludes from this courts subject matter jurisdiction cases brought by statecourt losers complaining of injuries caused by statecourt judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments holding that rookerfeldman bars subject matter jurisdiction where but for the statecourt judgment the plaintiff would have no claim holding rookerfeldman also bars federal claims raised in state court as well as claims that are inextricably intertwined with the statecourt judgment holding that although the state court affirmed the zoning board of appeals dismissal of plaintiffs appeal the statecourt judgment did not trigger rookerfeldman where the complaint did not allege that the judgment itself violated federal law