Transcript costs and appeals

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred by applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to dismiss Petitioner's entire multi-count complaint without separately analyzing each count under the "source of the injury" framework established in Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2010), which requires claim-by-claim analysis to determine whether each claim asserts an injury caused by the state-court judgment itself or by an independent unconstitutional act of the defendant. 2. Whether the "review and rejection" requirement of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine — which provides, under Great Western, that a damages claim does not trigger Rooker-Feldman so long as the state-court judgments "would not have to be rejected or overruled for [the plaintiff] to prevail," 615 F.3d at 174 — was correctly applied where Petitioner's Prayer for Relief sought only declaratory relief, damages, and correction of court records, and did not ask the federal court to vacate or reverse the state-court judgment. 3. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state appellate court dismisses a pro se litigant's appeal solely because he cannot afford the required transcript costs, without any review of the underlying merits, where a federal court has independently found the same litigant to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.