Garth Gaylord; Lori Marr; Paul Smith v. County of Ada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

-- 1 of 3 --

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 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 of 3 --

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.

-- 3 of 3 --