Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho denies Shaun Buck’s motion for a temporary restraining order, motion to disqualify all Article III judges, and grants his requests to file electronically and supplement his disqualification motion. The court orders Buck to show cause why the action should not be dismissed based on Younger abstention, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Eleventh Amendment, judicial immunity, and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants may submit briefing on the jurisdictional issues by May 15, 2026.
Holdings
- The motion to disqualify the presiding judge was denied because Buck did not provide sufficient evidence of personal bias, prejudice, or an objectively reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality. Professional acquaintance and generalized allegations of bias were insufficient.
- The temporary restraining order was denied because Buck failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, and the requested mandatory relief was not warranted.
- The court preliminarily determined that Younger abstention, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Eleventh Amendment, and judicial immunity likely barred the action, and ordered Buck to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.
- The court granted Buck permission to file electronically in the action and granted leave to submit his supplemental materials, subject to applicable court rules and procedures.
Questions Presented
- Whether Buck showed sufficient grounds to require disqualification of the presiding judge under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455.
- Whether Buck was entitled to a temporary restraining order requiring defendants to take mandatory action concerning his NCIC listing.
- Whether the action appeared barred by Younger abstention, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Eleventh Amendment, and judicial immunity, warranting an order to show cause before dismissal.
- Whether Buck should be permitted to file documents electronically and submit supplemental filing materials.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (12)
- Pellegrini v. Merch., 2017 WL 735740, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)(followed)
- Focus Media, Inc. v. Nat'l Broad. Co. (In re Focus Media, Inc.), 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- Buck v. Steckel, 2025 WL 2855279 (D. Idaho Oct. 8, 2025)(followed)
- Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975)(followed)
- Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-1165 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983)(followed)
- Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900-901 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923)(followed)
- CTIA-The Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, 854 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- L.A. Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…