Thomas J. Lallande Iv v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS J. LALLANDE IV,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16777
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00725-SMB-DMF
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JUL 5 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-16777
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 of 3 --

3 22-16777
motion” for a decision (Docket Entry No. 16) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --