cannot consider claims decided by a state court or claims “inextricably intertwined” with an earlier state-court judgment. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct.App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1311, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). “[A] federal claim is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a state court judgment ‘if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.’ ” Mackenzie v. Donovan, 375 F.Supp.2d 312, 319 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (quoting Bell v. State, 99-5809, 2000 WL 1273637, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.7, 2000)). The me appellate jurisdiction and to overrule the state court judgment, which this Court may not do under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See id. (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars
holding that the plaintiff was effectively asking the federal court to review and rule on the propriety of the state court action and that granting the requested relief would effectively declare the state court order invalid holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court holding that the state court is revested with jurisdiction when a federal district court executes the remand order and mails a certified copy of the order to the state court holding that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that effectively sought review of an indiana state courts decision