Suarez

concurring, joined by Judges TROTT and THOMAS:

I agree that Suarez has not shown the Superior Court was deliberately indifferent in failing to inquire about the same-day availability of an American Sign Language (“ASL”) translator. I am, however, unsettled by the absence of effective communication and coordination between the Superior Court and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department regarding Suarez’s disability and his obvious need for a translator at his arraignment. Had Suarez *472 been able to communicate through a translator the first time he appeared before the Superior Court, this innocent man would not have had to spend the following seven nights in jail.

Suarez was mistakenly arrested on August 8, 2005, on a warrant that had been issued for another person. The Sheriffs Department first brought him from the Twin Towers Correctional Facility to the Metropolitan Courthouse a little before noon on Tuesday, August 9, and placed him in a holding cell in the basement. After about an hour and a half, a police officer who works for the Sheriffs Department apparently realized that Suarez was deaf and taped a sign reading “DEAF” to the front of his shirt. No other action was…

MEMORANDUM **

Humberto Suarez, a deaf man, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant Superior Court of California on Suarez’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 , et seq. and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Ferguson v. City of Phoenix, 157 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir.1998). “To recover monetary damages under Title II of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination on the part of the defendant.” Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th Cir.2001). In order to show intentional discrimination in the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with “deliberate indifference.” Id. at 1138-39 . “Deliberate indifference requires both knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that ... likelihood.” Id. at 1139 .

In the case at bar, Plaintiff appeared in court in the late afternoon of August 9, 2005, and his attorney requested an American Sign Language…