Federal suits over court fraud

1. Whether a district court abuses its discretion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) when it denies a motion to reopen the time to appeal based solely on the court's internal mailing practices — without requiring the clerk to demonstrate that the specific notice of the judgment was actually served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d). 2. Whether a pro se litigant's motion to reopen under Rule 4(a)(6) must be supported by affirmative evidence of non-receipt, or whether the litigant's sworn statement of non-receipt, combined with the clerk's failure to provide proof of service under Rule 77(d), is sufficient to satisfy the Rule's requirement that the court find that the moving party did not receive notice. 3. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a federal civil rights action for damages based on a state actor's extrinsic fraud when the plaintiffs injury stems from the defendant's out-of-court deception rather than the state court judgment itself. 4. Whether the courts of appeals are in conflict on whether a state court judgment obtained through a complete failure of service of process and fraud upon the court has preclusive effect under res judicata.