Case ID: f-appx_334/html/0863-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin Luther OREN, et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 07-16252.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 2009.
    Filed Oct. 26, 2009.
    Colleen Duffy-Smith, Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    
      Ann Miller Ravel, Counsel, David Michael Rollo, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, San Jose, CA, Thomas Evan Still, Esquire, Hinshaw, Draa, Marsh, Still & Hinshaw, Saratoga, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: HUG and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Luther Oren appeals the district court’s summary judgment order in favor of Santa Clara County Sheriff Deputies Zuniga and Vandegraaf for claimed violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Olsen v. Idaho Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Oren’s claim because the evidence was insufficient to establish that the deputies were deliberately indifferent to Oren’s medical health and safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); see also Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 419 (9th Cir.2003). Upon booking Oren at the Santa Clara Jail, the deputies informed the jail staff of Oren’s behavior and medication. Furthermore, the accident underlying this suit happened hours after Oren posted bail and was released from custody. The jail staff was not in a position to ignore the bail order and retain Oren.

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