`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`FILED
`
`
`JUL 17 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
` No. 24-1976
`
`D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01108-SRB--
`MTM
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`THOMAS SAMUEL WALLACE,
`
` Plaintiff - Appellant,
`
` v.
`
`COUNTY OF MARICOPA; STATE OF
`ARIZONA; UNKNOWN PARTY, Named
`as Mayor of Phoenix; UNKNOWN PARTY
`2, Named as Chief of Police; BRANDY
`THWING, Detective #7686,
`
` Defendants - Appellees.
`
`
`
`
`Before:
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Arizona
`Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted July 15, 2025**
`
`SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
`
`Arizona state prisoner Thomas Samuel Wallace appeals pro se from the
`
`district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
`
`*
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`
`constitutional violations arising during his pretrial detention. 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 Wallace’s conditions-of-confinement
`
`claim because Wallace 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); Demery v. Arpaio, 378
`
`F.3d 1020, 1030 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that, to constitute punishment, the
`
`governmental action must cause harm or disability that either significantly exceeds
`
`or is independent of the inherent discomforts of confinement); 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 claims);
`
`The district court properly dismissed Wallace’s excessive force claim
`
`because Wallace failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the officer’s use of
`
`force was objectively unreasonable. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389,
`
`396-97 (2015) (an excessive force claim requires the pretrial detainee to show that
`
`“the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`24-1976
`
`
`
`unreasonable”); Bell v. Williams, 108 F.4th 809, 819 (9th Cir. 2024) (setting forth
`
`factors to consider in determining whether the use of force against a pretrial
`
`detainee was objectively unreasonable).
`
`Wallace’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 11) is
`
`denied.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`24-1976
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
