Case Name: Ernest J. BROOKS, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William B. KOLENDER, Sheriff; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-19
Citations: 362 F. App'x 735
Docket Number: No. 08-56432
Parties: Ernest J. BROOKS, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William B. KOLENDER, Sheriff; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 735–736

Head Matter:
Ernest J. BROOKS, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William B. KOLENDER, Sheriff; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-56432.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
Ernest J. Brooks, III, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
David Brodie, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

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