Court Opinion

ID: 9640262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:01:57.567843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:28.749052
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARTH GAYLORD; LORI MARR; PAUL                  No. 22-35980
SMITH,
                                                D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00195-BLW
                Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

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

                   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).
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 Heck-

barred 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

                                          2                                   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.

                                           3                                      22-35980