Anthony A. STRINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LINCOLN COUNTY JAIL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: December 18, 2019
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Anthony A. Stringer, Portland, OR, pro se. Robert Edward Franz, Jr., Law Office of Robert E. Franz, Jr., Springfield, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Anthony A. Stringer appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate medical care while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond, LLC, 780 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Tam because Stringer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Tam's conduct in providing medical care to Stringer was objectively unreasonable. See Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1124-25 (setting forth objective deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees).
Summary judgment for defendant Lincoln County Jail was proper because Stringer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a policy or custom caused him to suffer constitutional injuries. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Stringer's motion to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 20) is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 18. Stringer's request for appointment of an expert witness in video forensics, set forth in his opening and supplemental briefs, is denied.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.