Thomas Lallande, IV v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 5, 2023
• Docket: 22-16777
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 5 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS J. LALLANDE IV, No. 22-16777

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00725-SMB-DMF

v.

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF MEMORANDUM* SUPERVISORS; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Thomas J. Lallande IV, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his

quarantines as a pretrial detainee violated his right to equal protection and due

process and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under

* 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lallande’s Fourteenth Amendment due

process claim because Lallande failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the

quarantines amounted to punishment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-37,

539 (1979) (explaining that pretrial detainees have a Fourteenth Amendment right

to be free from jail conditions or restrictions that “amount to punishment,” but a

condition or restriction does not amount to punishment if it “is reasonably related

to a legitimate governmental objective”). Nor did Lallande show the statutes and

administrative codes he cited applied to the correctional facility. See, e.g., Ariz.

Rev. Stat. § 36-781 (defining “local health authority” as “a county health

department or public health services district or any person authorized to act on

behalf of the county health department or public health services district.”).

To the extent Lallande challenges the district court’s decision to refrain from

deciding the alleged violations of his right to a speedy trial in his then-pending

state criminal case, such abstention was proper. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.

37, 41 (1971).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Lallande’s motion for a decision (Docket Entry No. 14) and “emergency

2 22-16777 motion” for a decision (Docket Entry No. 16) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-16777