Robin Lee Sherwood v. DEPUTY TANCRATOR, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy in his/her individual capacity;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBIN LEE SHERWOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPUTY TANCRATOR, San Bernardino
County Sheriff’s Deputy in his/her
individual capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56119
D.C. No. 5:06-cv-00096-CJC-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Robin Lee Sherwood appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his safety when he was a pretrial detainee. We have
FILED
AUG 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-56119 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) , and
we affirm.
Sherwood claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent when they
double-celled him in the general population rather than placing him in protective
custody because he had initiated the gang dropout process. Summary judgment
was proper because Sherwood failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to his
safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (requiring evidence that
defendants actually knew of and disregarded a risk to a prisoner’s safety).
Specifically, the uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that Sherwood did not start
the official debriefing and dropout process until 2007, well after the incident at
issue during which he was attacked; that Sherwood requested that he not be placed
in protective custody; and that the defendants did not have information indicating
that Sherwood’s cell-mate posed a risk of serious danger to Sherwood.
The additional material Sherwood submitted on appeal is not part of the
appellate record and will not, therefore, be considered. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a);
Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Papers not

-- 2 of 3 --

08-56119 3
filed with the district court or admitted into evidence by that court are not part of
the clerk’s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --