In this case, petitioner contends that, for example,

1. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a narrow doctrine, is inapplicable to this independent action, and this case does not meet the party identity and time prerequisites for the application, and the claims deny a conclusion reached by the state court that is permissible;

2. Public defendants' unreasonable warrantless seizure of petitioner's home invaded her privacy by state court orders under color of state law in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The question presented is:

Whether the appeal has been properly dismissed "because it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact" Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

Whether the appeal has been properly dismissed because it 'lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact' Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)