Case ID: f-appx_459/html/0604-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETERSON, Captain, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-36003.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 22, 2011.
    David Hoskins, Boise, ID, pro se.
    Blake G. Hall, Esquire, Sam L. Angelí, Esquire, Anderson Nelson Hall Smith, Idaho Falls, ID, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Hoskins appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hoskins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Peterson or any of the jail staff were deliberately indifferent to Hos-kins’s mental health, chronic back and leg pain, hypoglycemia, or the delivery of his prescribed medications. See Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986) (pretrial detainee’s claim for inadequate medical treatment is evaluated against the standard of care guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment, and jail personnel violate the Eighth Amendment “if they are deliberately indifferent to the [detainee’s] serious medical needs”).

Peterson’s request for attorney’s fees is denied without prejudice to her making a proper motion for attorney’s fees consistent with 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.