NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS SAMUEL WALLACE, No. 24-1976 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01108-SRB-- Plaintiff - Appellant, MTM v. MEMORANDUM* 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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2025**

Before: 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