NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

THOMAS LALLANDE, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

PAUL PENZONE, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 22-0545 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2022-006929

LC2022-000151-001

The Honorable Katherine Cooper, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Thomas J. Lallande IV, Phoenix

Plaintiff/Appellant

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Michael E. Gottfried

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

FILED 9-7-2023
LALLANDE v. PENZONE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Thomas J. Lallande IV appeals the superior court’s dismissal 

of his petition for special action against Maricopa County Sheriff Paul 

Penzone for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On May 31, 2022, Lallande, then a presentencing and pretrial 

detainee in the Maricopa County jail,1 petitioned the superior court for a 

special action review of quarantine protocols issued by Maricopa County 

Correctional Health Services (“CHS”) and enforced by Sheriff Penzone. 

Lallande sought release from an alleged improper COVID-19 quarantine, 

arguing that Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 36-789 required 

CHS to provide a written directive or obtain a written court order before 

imposing a quarantine.

2 Lallande contended that his criminal court date 

had been continued at least thirty times due to multiple unauthorized

quarantines in excess of 300 total days, thus violating his constitutional 

right to a speedy trial.3 Lallande argued that Sheriff Penzone erroneously 

1 Lallande was awaiting sentencing in Maricopa County Superior 

Court case no. CR2020-000414, and he was awaiting trial in three other 

matters, Maricopa County Superior Court case nos. CR2020-143488, 

CR2021-000613, and CR2022-001569.

2 Section 36-789 permits the department of health services or the local 

health authority, which is defined as a county health department or public 

health services district, to isolate or quarantine a person through a written 

directive without first obtaining a written court order in cases of immediate 

and serious threat to the public health. See A.R.S. §§ 36-789(A), -101(2),

-781(4).

3 Both the federal and Arizona constitutions provide for the right to a 

speedy public trial. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24. 

However, “[n]either the United States nor the Arizona Constitution 
LALLANDE v. PENZONE

Decision of the Court

3

enforced the unauthorized quarantine in violation of A.R.S. § 26-316, which 

requires state law enforcement authorities to enforce orders, rules, and 

regulations pursuant to the state’s emergency management powers.

¶3 Lallande also filed an application requesting a court order 

directing Sheriff Penzone to show cause why Lallande should not be 

released from quarantine. In support of his application, Lallande avowed 

he had not previously requested such relief from any other court.

¶4 The superior court sua sponte converted the special action to 

a civil action. Sheriff Penzone moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction 

because Lallande had previously filed a separate civil lawsuit against the 

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and others regarding his alleged 

unconstitutional quarantine, which had been removed to the United States 

District Court for the District of Arizona. See Lallande v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. 

of Supervisors, Maricopa County Superior Court, No. CV2022-003910 (Ariz. 

Mar. 29, 2022) (unpublished order); Lallande v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of 

Supervisors, United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. 

CV22-00725-PHX-SMB (DMF) (D. Ariz. 2022). The district court had 

dismissed that lawsuit for procedural reasons with leave to refile. In 

response to Sheriff Penzone’s motion to dismiss in superior court, Lallande

advised the court that his petition for special action was not a civil lawsuit

and conceded he was pursuing his civil action in district court “regarding 

his unlawful quarantine.” On July 5, 2022, Lallande refiled his complaint 

in district court.

¶5 The superior court then found special action relief was not 

appropriate due to the pending civil action in district court, declined special 

action jurisdiction, and granted Sheriff Penzone’s motion to dismiss. We 

have jurisdiction over Lallande’s appeal under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Although Lallande raises multiple arguments addressing the 

merits of his case,4 the sole issue on appeal is whether the superior court 

requires that a trial be held within a specified time period.” State v. Spreitz, 

190 Ariz. 129, 139 (1997) (citations omitted).

4 Lallande argues (1) Sheriff Penzone has quarantine authority in the 

Maricopa County jail, (2) Sheriff Penzone failed to comply with Arizona 

quarantine laws, (3) the superior court erred in denying a motion to appoint
LALLANDE v. PENZONE

Decision of the Court

4

abused its discretion in declining special action jurisdiction. Bilagody v. 

Thorneycroft, 125 Ariz. 88, 92 (App. 1979) (noting that if the appellate court 

determines the superior court declined jurisdiction of the merits of the 

claim, then the sole issue on appeal is whether the superior court abused its 

discretion); Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 3, Comm. Note.

¶7 The superior court has jurisdiction to issue writs of 

prohibition on behalf of a person held in actual custody within the county

and to issue extraordinary writs against state officers. Ariz. Const. art. 6, §§ 

5, 18; Ariz. Corp. Comm’n v. Super. Ct., 107 Ariz. 24, 26 (1971) (concluding the 

superior court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Arizona Supreme Court 

to issue extraordinary writs to state officers). Although such relief may be 

accorded via a special action proceeding in superior court, special action 

relief is highly discretionary and is reserved for the extraordinary 

circumstances when a public official fails to do what he is required by law 

to do, acts when required by law not to act, or abuses his discretion. See

Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a), 3. Special action relief is not available when there 

is some other equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Ariz. R.P. Spec. 

Act. 1(a); Neary v. Frantz, 141 Ariz. 171, 177 (App. 1984).

¶8 Here, the superior court reviewed the record and determined 

that Lallande had a remedy available by a civil lawsuit and was pursuing 

that remedy in district court. We agree. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a cause of 

action is conferred on anyone who claims deprivation of a constitutional 

right under color of law. Neary, 141 Ariz. at 178. The district court granted 

Lallande leave to refile his civil action regarding his alleged unauthorized 

quarantine, noting that its jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

extended to claims that placement in quarantine violated federal 

constitutional rights. The district court ultimately dismissed the lawsuit, 

see Lallande v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, No. CV 22-00725-PXH-SMB 

(DMF), at 7-9 & n.2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 24, 2022) (unpublished order), and the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal, see Lallande 

v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 22-16777, 2023 WL 4348098 (9th Cir. 

July 5, 2023) (mem. decision).

5 Thus, Lallande had a plain, speedy, and 

adequate remedy at law, and the superior court did not abuse its discretion

in declining special action jurisdiction. See Neary, 141 Ariz. at 177.

counsel, and (4) the superior court misinterpreted the law and erred in 

dismissing his case.

5 Although the district court refrained from ruling on the speedy trial 

issue, we conclude such abstention is irrelevant given our finding of 

mootness below.
LALLANDE v. PENZONE

Decision of the Court

5

¶9 Lallande argues without explanation that the relief he sought

in his civil action is different than the relief requested in his petition for 

special action. In his petition for special action, Lallande sought release 

from quarantine so that he could receive a speedy trial in his then-pending 

criminal case. To the extent this request for relief differs from that 

requested in his civil action,6 we find the pretrial-release-from-quarantine 

issue is moot. Issues involving pretrial incarceration conditions 

become moot once a trial is conducted. Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a); Fragoso v. 

Fell, 210 Ariz. 427, 429, ¶ 3 (App. 2005). We take judicial notice of the 

underlying state criminal case dockets, see Chung v. Choulet, 248 Ariz. 236, 

240, ¶ 14 (App. 2020), which show Lallande received a jury trial in February 

2022 (predating Lallande’s filing of the petition for special action in this 

case). See State v. Lallande, Maricopa County Superior Court, No. CR2020-

000414. The jury found him guilty of several crimes, and in May 2023, the 

superior court sentenced him to imprisonment with presentence credit for 

time served. Further, after having waived his constitutional right to a jury 

trial and pleading guilty in the three other pending criminal cases, he was 

sentenced at the same time to concurrent sentences, with consecutive terms 

of probation. See State v. Lallande, Maricopa County Superior Court, Nos.

CR2020-143488, CR2021-000613, CR2022-001569. Thus, because Lallande 

has already received the relief he was seeking in his petition for special 

action, we find no basis to vacate the superior court’s ruling. Chambers v. 

United Farm Workers Org. Comm., AFL-CIO, 25 Ariz. App. 104, 106 (1975) 

(noting that mootness prohibits giving opinions concerning issues that no 

longer exist due to a change in factual circumstances).

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s 

ruling.

6 It appears Lallande requested the same relief in district court. See

Lallande v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, No. CV 22-00725-PXH-SMB 

(DMF).