Julie M. Sowell, et al. v. Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP, et al.

I. In the district court petitioners sought prospective declaratory relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, from a Connecticut Superior Court protective order that violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The district court dismissed the action under the RookerFeldman doctrine. The Second Circuit panel affirmed in a summary order. The First Question Presented is: Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine apply to interlocutory orders that are entered in state court proceedings that end after the federal court action is commenced? II. Under state law, state judges who violate constitutional rights while acting in their official capacity are subject to suit in an action for declaratory relief. Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296 (1998). In the district court petitioners alleged that practices adopted by the judicial respondents in Sowell v. DiCara, 161 Conn. App. 102, cert. denied, 320 Conn. 909 (2015), are unconstitutional and that petitioners’ challenges to the practices in the state courts were dismissed as being barred by