Ernest Brooks, III v. William Kolender
Ernest J. BROOKS, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William B. KOLENDER, Sheriff; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Robert R. Beezer (author), Jay S. Bybee, Stephen S. Trott
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNEST J. BROOKS, III, No. 08-56432 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00749-JAH- CAB v. WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, Sheriff; et al., MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 11, 2010 ** Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ernest J. Brooks, III, a former pretrial detainee at San Diego County Jail, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LA/Research action claiming that jail personnel were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because Brooks failed to raise a triable issue as to whether any defendant intentionally delayed or interfered with treatment of Brooks’ knee. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s medical needs when they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Brooks did not demonstrate that his problem was so severe that a delay in treatment could cause significant harm, or that defendants should have known this to be the case. See id.;
see also Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that, because pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment rights are comparable to prisoners’
Eighth Amendment rights, the same standards apply).
Brooks’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
LA/Research 2 08-56432