WHEREAS, Plaintiff's Complaint appears to simply be a retread of a previous complaint he filed before this same Court in 2018, styled there as a “Writ of Error, ” in which he asserted most of the same claims (see Fisher v. Eastamption Board of Education, No. 18-cv-15143-NLH-AMD, ECF No. 1); and WHEREAS, Plaintiff had also previously litigated nearly identical claims regarding the exact same issues in state court, which the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division dismissed because his claims were “not filed before the statute of limitations expired, ” a dismissal which was upheld on appeal by the Superior Court, Appellate Division, (see Fisher v. Eastampton Board of Education, No. A-4377-14T2, 2017 WL 444306 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 2017); and WHEREAS, in the 2018 case before this Court, the Court held that “Plaintiff's request that this Court reexamine the same claims the state court resolved, and separately assess the propriety of the state court's decisions, would plainly violate the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, ” (No. 18-cv-15143-NLH-AMD, ECF No. 7 at 6); and

-------- WHEREAS, the Court found that Plaintiff's complaint asks this Court to review and reconsider the decisions of his prior state court case, which did not terminate in Plaintiff's favor, by resolving the issue raised by Defendant regarding Plaintiff's lack of ownership of the subject property, and reversing the state court's determination that his claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations (see Docket No. 1 at 3; Docket No. 1-1 at 5; Fisher v. Eastampton Board of Education, 2017 WL 444306, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017) (affirming the trial court)) (Docket No. 7 at 6); and WHEREAS, the Court also noted that because Plaintiff's claims were subject to final judgment by the New Jersey Supreme Court, Plaintiff's "writ of error" as to the state trial and appellate court's decisions must be directed to the United States Supreme Court, see Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006) (explaining that the U.S. Supreme Court is vested, under 28 U.S.C. § 1257, with exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from final state court judgments) (Id. at 6 n.6.); and

-------- WHEREAS, the Court found that Plaintiff's complaint asks this Court to review and reconsider the decisions of his prior state court case, which did not terminate in Plaintiff's favor, by resolving the issue raised by Defendant regarding Plaintiff's lack of ownership of the subject property, and reversing the state court's determination that his claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations (see Docket No. 1 at 3; Docket No. 1-1 at 5; Fisher v. Eastampton Board of Education, 2017 WL 444306, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017) (affirming the trial court)) (Docket No. 7 at 6); and WHEREAS, the Court also noted that because Plaintiff's claims were subject to final judgment by the New Jersey Supreme Court, Plaintiff's "writ of error" as to the state trial and appellate court's decisions must be directed to the United States Supreme Court.

WHEREAS, if these requirements are met, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits the district court from exercising jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff's complaint here asks this Court to review and reconsider the decisions of his prior state court case, which did not terminate in Plaintiff's favor, by resolving the issue raised by Defendant regarding Plaintiff's lack of ownership of the subject property, and reversing the state court's determination that his claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations (see Docket No. 1 at 3; Docket No. 1-1 at 5; Fisher v. Eastampton Board of Education, 2017 WL 444306, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017) (affirming the trial court)); and WHEREAS, Plaintiff's request that this Court reexamine the same claims the state court resolved, and separately assess the propriety of the state court's decisions, would plainly violate the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine;