NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARTH GAYLORD; LORI MARR; PAUL 

SMITH, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF ADA; MICHAEL 

MACLEOD; MORGAN CASE; EDWARD 

BENNETT; JAMES EDDIE RICHARDS; 

VICENTE SEPULVEDA; JOE WOOD; 

DAVID BAISCH, “Ken”; DERRECK 

CARDINALE; BRIAN BURRELL; 

CHRISTOPHER STOFFERAHN, 

Defendants-Appellees

No. 22-35980 

D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00195-BLW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Garth Gaylord, Paul Smith, and Lori Marr appeal pro se from the district 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 22 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-35980

court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims 

related to their arrests at an Ada County courthouse. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Sanders v. City of Pittsburg, 14 F.4th 968, 

970 (9th Cir. 2021) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on 

the basis of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)); ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. 

v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014) (abstention 

determination under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gaylord’s and Smith’s claims as Heckbarred because success on their claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of 

their convictions, and Gaylord and Smith did not allege facts sufficient to show 

that their convictions had been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

487 (1994) (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the 

invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless 

the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been 

invalidated”).

The district court properly dismissed Marr’s claims as barred under the 

Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts should avoid interfering “with 

ongoing state criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings.” Arevalo v. 

Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining when a district court 

should decline jurisdiction under Younger). Nor has Marr demonstrated that 
3 22-35980

defendants acted in bad faith. See Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 902-03 (9th Cir. 

2012) (discussing exceptions to Younger abstention, including bad faith).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. See 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 940 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth the 

standard for supplemental jurisdiction).

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action without leave to 

amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard for 

review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would 

be futile).

Defendants’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.

AFFIRMED.