Price v. Clifton

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AHMAD RAHEEM PRICE, No. 24-7514 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:22-cv-00091-JLS-GJS v. MEMORANDUM* KYLE CLIFTON, individual capacity,

Defendant - Appellee,

CODY ISIDE, individual capacity, CITY OF WEST COVINA,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2026**

Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Ahmad Price (“Price”) appeals the district court’s grant

* 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). of Defendant-Appellee Kyle Clifton’s (“Officer Clifton”) motion to dismiss. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s application of the Younger abstention

doctrine, Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 617 (9th Cir. 2003), and

issue preclusion, McInnes v. State of Cal., 943 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1991).

1. Price has standing to challenge the legality of Officer Clifton’s search

and seizure because Officer Clifton was not aware that Price was on parole when

he initially detained him. See United States v. Estrella, 69 F.4th 958, 961 (9th Cir.

2023) (“[A] law enforcement officer must have probable cause to believe that a

person is on active parole before he may be detained and searched pursuant to a

parole condition.”).

2. The Supreme Court’s decision in Younger v. Harris mandates that we

abstain from intervening in Price’s ongoing state criminal proceedings absent

extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Abstention is appropriate if: (1)

the state proceedings are ongoing, (2) the proceedings “are quasi-criminal

enforcement actions,” (3) the proceedings “implicate an important state interest,”

(4) the proceedings “allow litigants to raise federal challenges,” and (5) “the

federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.”

Rynearson v. Ferguson, 903 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting ReadyLink

Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2014)).

2 24-7514 Here, Price is subject to ongoing state criminal proceedings related to the

evidence obtained during Officer Clifton’s search of his car on January 18, 2020.

California has an important state interest in prosecuting individuals for violating its

laws, and Price was afforded the opportunity to raise federal challenges in his

motion to suppress in the state proceedings. Granting Price’s request to prohibit

the use of this evidence in any court proceedings would directly interfere with his

criminal case, in contravention of Younger.

Further, Price has failed to show any “special circumstances” warranting

federal intervention. Carden v. State of Mont., 626 F.2d 82, 83–84 (9th Cir. 1980).

Price claims that “extraordinary circumstances” exist because: (1) the Riverside

County Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over the search that occurred in

Los Angeles County, (2) Price’s criminal proceedings do not stem from any crimes

related to his encounter with Officer Clifton, and (3) Officer Clifton filed his

allegedly false supplemental report without notice to Price and “with the specific

intent to negatively impact Price’s criminal matter.” We are not aware, however,

of any law prohibiting a state court from reviewing the legality of a search that

occurred in a separate county on a motion to suppress. Additionally, the evidence

obtained by Officer Clifton during the search directly relates to Price’s ongoing

criminal proceedings. Finally, the California trial court and Court of Appeals

already considered Price’s challenges to Officer Clifton’s supplemental report and

3 24-7514 found no reason to discount Officer Clifton’s testimony.1 Because “the danger of

irreparable loss” to Price is not “great and immediate,” these circumstances do not

necessitate federal intervention. Younger, 401 U.S. at 45. Accordingly, the district

court correctly applied the Younger abstention doctrine to Price’s request for a

permanent injunction.

3. The district court also correctly applied issue preclusion to each of

Price’s claims for damages. “[I]ssue preclusion applies: (1) after final adjudication

(2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first

suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity

with that party.” Wright v. Beck, 981 F.3d 719, 738 (9th Cir. 2020) (alteration in

original) (quoting DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 387 (Cal. 2015)).

The state trial court and Court of Appeals decided that Officer Clifton lawfully

detained Price and searched his vehicle. The court also declined to discredit the

supplemental police report as false. Because each of Price’s claims rest on

identical issues that were actually litigated and decided in Price’s criminal

proceeding, issue preclusion applies.

4. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to

1 We also reject Price’s argument that Officer Clifton’s supplemental police report “is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to infractions.” We are unaware of any statute of limitations in California which would bar the state court from considering Officer Clifton’s report.

4 24-7514 amend because additional amendment “could not possibly cure the deficiency.”

Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.

1986).

AFFIRMED.2

2 Price’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Dkt. No. 25, is denied.

5 24-7514