Garth Gaylord v. County of Ada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARTH GAYLORD; LORI MARR; PAUL No. 22-35980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