Ernest J. Brooks, Iii v. WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, Sheriff;

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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNEST J. BROOKS, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, Sheriff; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56432
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00749-JAH-
CAB
MEMORANDUM *
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
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 08-56432 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --