NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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. 24-7052 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01192-SRB-- Plaintiff - Appellant, MTM v. MEMORANDUM* MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; COUNTY OF MARICOPA; STATE OF ARIZONA; MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, named Maricopa County Sheriffs Department Board of Supervisors; UNKNOWN WILLIAMS, Captain; PAUL PENZONE, AKA Paul Pensone, Ex Maricopa County Sheriff,

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.

* 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). Arizona state prisoner Thomas Samuel Wallace appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations

of his right to adequate food 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 reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Wallace’s action for failure to state a claim.

However, Wallace alleged in the second amended complaint that for seven months,

defendants regularly served Wallace food that was spoiled and rotten and

insufficient to maintain health. Liberally construed, these allegations were

“sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Id. at 1116; see

also Vasquez v. County of Kern, 949 F.3d 1153, 1163 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining

that “the Fourteenth Amendment is more protective than the Eighth Amendment”);

Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016)

(setting forth objective deliberate indifference standard applicable to Fourteenth

Amendment claims by pretrial detainees); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731-32

(9th Cir. 2000) (noting that “[p]rison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners

are provided adequate . . . food” and recognizing cognizable Eighth Amendment

claim based on provision of “inedible food” for four days). We reverse the

judgment and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 24-7052