OPINION *

Glen Christian appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Christian appeals pro se and, having granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we must determine whether this appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®. An appeal is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). There is no arguable basis to challenge the District Court’s order. 1

As the District Court ably explained, through his District Court filing, Christian squarely and explicitly sought to overturn the New Jersey Supreme Court’s order entered against him years earlier. This is precisely the type of case that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider, pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (federal courts precluded from exercising jurisdiction over case brought by state-court losers challenging the state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced). Christian has not alleged any error by the District Court, and we can discern no possible meritorious challenge to the District Court’s order.

*191 We will thus dismiss the appeal as frivolous.