Anthony Stringer v. Lincoln County Jail ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY A. STRINGER, No. 18-35783
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:16-cv-01428-MO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LINCOLN COUNTY JAIL; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 (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,
2 18-35783
set forth in his opening and supplemental briefs, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-35783