ANTHONY STRINGER V. LINCOLN COUNTY JAIL, No. 18-35783 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY A. STRINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-35783 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.