Michael Devin Floyd v. San Jose Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL DEVIN FLOYD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
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.
No. 22-16243
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00751-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JUL 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16243
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 of 2 --