Spence v. Lower Buckeye Jail

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER A. SPENCE, No. 24-1630 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00928-SPL--DMF Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* LOWER BUCKEYE JAIL, MCSO Facility; PAUL PENZONE, AKA Paul Pensone, Maricopa County Sheriff; COUNTY OF MARICOPA; MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; Unknown MIKELS, named as Lt Mikels B1619, Lieutenant at Maricopa County Jails; KIRK, named as Sgt Kirk B0326, Sergeant at Maricopa County Jails; Unknown KING, named as Capt King A6460, Captain at Maricopa County Jails; Unknown OVERGARD, named as Sgt Overgard B1600, Sergeant at Maricopa County Jails; UNKNOWN PARTY, Named as Sheriff that was in-charge of LBJ 23-B on 5/15/2023 at 9AM; MARICOPA COUNTY GOVERNMENT JAILS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Submitted July 15, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Christopher A. Spence appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Spence’s action because Spence failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that pretrial detainees may sue prison officials for injuries under the Fourteenth Amendment and setting forth objective deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of- confinement claims); Lockett v. County of Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that a claim for municipal liability under Monell v. Department ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 24-1630 of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), requires a plaintiff to show an underlying constitutional violation). 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). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 24-1630