Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9510196
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Thomas Lallande, IV v. Paul Penzone
No. 9510196 · Decided June 3, 2024
No. 9510196·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 3, 2024
Citation
No. 9510196
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2024 MOLLY C.
02MEMORANDUM* PAUL PENZONE, Sheriff, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
03Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 29, 2024** Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
04Lallande IV appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Thomas Lallande, IV v. Paul Penzone in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 3, 2024.
Use the citation No. 9510196 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.