Thomas Lallande, IV v. Paul Penzone

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2024
• Docket: 23-15642
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS J. LALLANDE IV, No. 23-15642

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00200-SMB-DMF

v. MEMORANDUM* PAUL PENZONE, Sheriff, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Thomas J. Lallande IV appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a conditions-of-confinement

claim concerning the meals Lallande was provided as a pretrial detainee. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for

* 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). summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016).

We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants

because Lallande failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

any defendant put him at a substantial risk of serious harm or caused him injury

because of the meals he was provided. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833

F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (providing that for conditions-of-

confinement claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that

the alleged inadequate conditions “put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering

serious harm” and that defendants “caused the plaintiff’s injuries”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

Lallande’s request for excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied.

Appellees’ motion to submit sealed documents (Docket Entry No. 19) is

granted. The Clerk will maintain under seal Docket Entry No. 19-2. The Clerk

will file publicly the motion to submit documents under seal (Docket Entry No. 19-

1).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15642