David Hoskins v. PETERSON, Captain

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID HOSKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PETERSON, Captain,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-36003
D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00002-EJL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
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,
FILED
NOV 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-36003 2
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 Hoskins’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.

-- 2 of 2 --