Court Opinion

ID: 9411122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 20:01:33.47848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:03.843666
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL DEVIN FLOYD,                            No. 22-16243

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00751-CRB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY
OF SAN JOSE, City Clerk; CITY OF SAN
JOSE, OFFICE OF THE CITY
ATTORNEY; JOSHUA WHITE, SJPD
Officer; DAKOTA PETERS, SJPD Officer;
EUGENE ITO, SJPD Sergeant; DAVID
MORENO, SJPD Officer; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                   Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before:      SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Michael Devin Floyd appeals pro se from the district court’s order staying

      *
             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).
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with

his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

district court’s abstention determination under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37

(1971). Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

      The district court properly stayed Floyd’s action under the Younger

abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering

with pending state judicial proceedings where the federal action would have the

practical effect of enjoining the state judicial proceeding. See Matteucci, 986 F.3d

at 1133 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention). Floyd also failed to

show that an exception to Younger applies. See Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d

763, 765-66 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that federal court may decline to invoke

Younger abstention upon a showing of “bad faith, harassment, or some other

extraordinary circumstance”).

      We do not consider Floyd’s contentions that are outside the scope of this

appeal.

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                    22-16243