With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ralph Lewis Read appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the revocation of his medical license by the Oregon Medical Board. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. The district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Read’s first “non-fraud” claim under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1165 (9th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). By challenging the Oregon Medical Board’s

A: holding that a plaintiffs federal action seeking to vacate a state court judgment was a de facto appeal and thus barred under the rookerfeldman doctrine
B: holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal jurisdiction when a plaintiffs suit in federal district court is at least in part a forbidden de facto appeal of a state court judgment and an  issue in that federal suit is inextricably intertwined with an issue resolved by the state court judicial decision from which the forbidden de facto appeal is taken
C: holding rookerfeldman also bars federal claims raised in state court as well as claims that are inextricably intertwined with the statecourt judgment
D: holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine
B.