Bucknor v. County of Contra Costa et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DON LEE BUCKNOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-08460-RFL
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
SCREENING CASE PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1915; AND DISCHARGING
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Don Lee Bucknor, who is proceeding without the benefit of counsel, filed a section 1983
complaint against Contra Costa County, District Attorney Diana Becton, and Deputy District
Attorney Daniela Maldonado (the “County Defendants”). Bucknor also names as defendants the
Hon. Leonard E. Marquez and the Hon. Peter Chang (the “State Court Defendants”). Finally,
Bucknor names private citizens Mariyam Yonas Rufael and Yonas Rufael. Bucknor alleges that
Defendants deprived him of custody over his minor child in violation of his constitutional rights.
This Court has an obligation to dismiss any claim it lacks jurisdiction over. Accordingly,
the Court issued an order to show cause asking Bucknor to explain why this case should not be
dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits federal courts from reviewing
state court child custody determinations. (Dkt. No. 6.) Bucknor subsequently filed an amended
complaint, which appears identical to his initial complaint and raises the same jurisdictional
issues as those described in the Order to Show Cause. (Dkt. No. 9.)
Bucknor has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 8.) This motion
is GRANTED. Because Bucknor is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court has an obligation
to screen his amended complaint and determine whether it states a claim for which relief can be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The amended complaint as currently drafted runs afoul of the
Case 3:26-cv-08460-RFL Document 11 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED without prejudice. Bucknor is
granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this
Order. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Federal district courts cannot hear appeals from state court
judgments. Miroth v. Cnty. of Trinity, 136 F.4th 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2025). That means a
plaintiff cannot complain the state court made a legal error and seek relief from its judgment in
federal court on that basis. Id. at 1151. A plaintiff may, however, complain of wrongful conduct
by other actors, which led to the state court order that allegedly harmed the plaintiff. Id. at 1158.
For example, a federal court may hear claims that third parties “defrauded the state court into
terminating the [plaintiff’s] parental rights.” Id. at 1151-52.
The operative complaint is an appeal from various state court orders, which cannot be
heard in federal court. Bucknor asserts that the family court took jurisdiction over his daughter’s
case when the juvenile court should have had exclusive jurisdiction, that the family court
wrongly denied him evidentiary hearings, and that the family court ignored pertinent
recommendations of Child and Family Services. These are all complaints of injury caused by
state court legal errors. The proper way to challenge them is through an appeal in state court, not
a federal lawsuit.
If a plaintiff brings a de facto appeal in federal court, then any claims that are
“inextricably intertwined” with the de facto appeal must also be dismissed. Id. at 1147-48. A
claim for monetary relief is “inextricably intertwined” with a de facto appeal if it depends on a
finding that the state court “wrongly decided the issues before it.” Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d
772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25 (1987) (Marshall,
J., concurring)). To the extent that Bucknor complains of actions beyond the allegedly erroneous
state court orders, each of those claims is intertwined with his de facto appeal. Bucknor alleges
that the County Defendants and the Rufaels wrongly characterized him as a threat to his daughter
when the Rufaels posed the real threat. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 9 at 3, 24.) Such claims are
contingent on a finding that the state court erred in placing Bucknor’s daughter with Mariyam
Case 3:26-cv-08460-RFL Document 11 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Rufael rather than with him. See Ramos, 704 F.3d at 782. As such, these claims cannot be
brought alongside a de facto appeal. Id. at 778.
Leave to Amend. In his response to the Court’s order to show cause, Bucknor
acknowledged the jurisdictional problems with his complaint and expressed willingness to file a
Second Amended Complaint that would challenge only “alleged misrepresentations and material
omissions by adverse parties and officials in the state proceedings - rather than [] any ruling of
the state court.” (Dkt. No. 10.) To be jurisdictionally acceptable, such claims would need to not
be brought alongside a claim for relief from the state court’s orders on the grounds that they are
legally erroneous. Miroth, 136 F.4th at 1147-48, 1156-57. Accordingly, Bucknor may further
amend his complaint to remove any claims of legal error by the State Court Defendants and to
clarify what misconduct he alleges by other defendants.
Conclusion. Bucknor’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The
amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Bucknor is cautioned that there may
be other defects in his amended complaint besides the foundational jurisdictional issue identified
in this Order. The Second Amended Complaint must be filed by October 30, 2026. Bucknor
is advised that the Court cannot refer to prior pleadings to make an amended complaint complete.
Any amended complaint must be complete in itself, including all claims and parties, because it
replaces the previously filed complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.
1992). Once Bucknor files a Second Amended Complaint, and assuming the Court is satisfied it
has jurisdiction, it will issue a further screening order assessing whether Bucknor states a claim
for relief as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-08460-RFL Document 11 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3