
    Robert D. HOLLOWAY, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF ARCHITECTS; John D. Harris, individually and in his official capacity as director of the Arkansas State Board of Architects; Blake Dunn, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Arkansas State Board of Architects; Steve Miller, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Arkansas State Board of Architects; Beth Leake, individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Arkansas State Board of Architects; Larry Black, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Arkansas State Board of Architects; Cora Bradshaw, individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Arkansas State Board of Architects; Eugene Levy, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Arkansas State Board of Architects; Larry McGowan, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Arkansas State Board of Architects; Jeff Shannon, in his official capacity as a member of the Arkansas State Board of Architects; Larry Jegley, in his official capacity as prosecuting attorney for Pulaski County, Arkansas and the Sixth Judicial District on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons; Mike Beebe, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the state of Arkansas, Appellees.
    No. 03-3670.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 7, 2004.
    Decided: July 27, 2004.
    Stuart W. Hankins, A. Vaughan Han-kins, Hankins Law Firm, North Little Rock, AR, for Appellant.
    Patricia VanAusdall Bell, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellees.
    Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Robert D. Holloway appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). After de novo review, see Charehenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 982-83 (8th Cir. 1995), we agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction, because Holloway’s federal complaint raised constitutional challenges already decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court, albeit in a non-section 1983 action. See Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir.1997) (litigant cannot circumvent Rooker-Feldman by recasting lawsuit as § 1983 action). Holloway’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were also barred, because any grant of relief would require the district court to make conclusions directly contrary to the decision of the state supreme court. See Lemonds v. St. Louis County, 222 F.3d 488, 492 (8th Cir.2000) (Rooker-Feldman bars indirect attempts to undermine state-court judgments); Keene Corp. v. Cass, 908 F.2d 293, 297 (8th Cir.1990) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
     