Sherrell v. Maui Community Correctional Center et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
BRIAN KEITH SHERRELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAUI COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, JILLIAN BERMEJO-BARRERA,
Defendants.
CIV. NO. 24-00183 LEK-KJM
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is Defendant Jillian Bermejo-
Barrera’s (“Bermejo-Barrera”) Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Motion”), filed August 18, 2025. [Dkt. no. 45.] Pro se
Plaintiff Brian Keith Sherrell (“Sherrell”) filed an opposition
to the Motion on September 15, 2025 (“Opposition”). [Dkt.
no. 55.] On October 3, 2025, Bermejo-Barrera filed a reply in
support of the Motion. [Dkt. no. 57.] On December 5, 2025,
Sherrell filed a document, [dkt. no. 66,] that has been
construed as his supplement to the Opposition (“Supplement”).
See Minute Order, filed 12/10/25 (dkt. no. 67), at PageID.347.
Bermejo-Barrera was permitted to file a reply to the Supplement,
[id. at PageID.348,] but did not do so.
The Court finds the Motion suitable for disposition
without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.1(c) of the Local Rules
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

2
of Practice for the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii (“Local Rules”). Bermejo-Barrera’s Motion is
granted for the reasons set forth below. In other words, summary
judgment is granted in favor of Bermejo-Barrera as to all of
Sherrell’s claims, and Sherrell has no remaining claims in this
case.
BACKGROUND
The operative pleading is Sherrell’s Prisoner Civil
Rights Complaint – First Amended Complaint (“Amended
Complaint”), which he filed on July 18, 2024. [Dkt. no. 21.]
This case arises out of a series of events that occurred in
August 2022 at the Maui Community Correctional Center (“MCCC”).
See Amended Complaint at PageID.68-69. Sherrell alleges that
three defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs by failing to provide Sherrell with adequate care after he
fell off the top bunk of a bunk bed in his prison cell, which
resulted in a knee injury. Specifically, he contends that after
an initial fall, the defendants denied his request for a bottom
bunk memorandum, which he claims directly resulted in a second
fall and further injury to his knee. See id. at PageID.68-72. On
July 24, 2024, the Court issued an order that allowed Sherrell’s
claims against Bermejo-Barrera to proceed but dismissed his
claims against the other defendants with prejudice (“7/24/24
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

3
Order”). See dkt. no. 23 at 6-8. 1 The remaining claim is a
Title 42 United States Code Section 1983 claim against Bermejo-
Barrera, in her individual capacity, for alleged violations of
Sherrell’s Eighth Amendment rights. See 7/24/24 Order at 11.
Bermejo-Barrera moves for summary judgment on the ground that
she did not personally participate in the alleged deprivation of
Sherrell’s rights. See Motion, Mem. in Supp. at 6-11. Bermejo-
Barrera also claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity.
[Id. at 11-12.]
I. 	Scope of the Record on Summary Judgment
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained:
In Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150
(9th Cir. 2010), this court emphasized that “an
ordinary pro se litigant, like other litigants,
must comply strictly with the summary judgment
rules. Pro se inmates are, however, expressly
exempted from this rule.” Id. (citation omitted).
“We have, therefore, held consistently that
courts should construe liberally motion papers
and pleadings filed by pro se inmates and should
avoid applying summary judgment rules strictly.”
Id. This rule exempts pro se inmates from strict
compliance with the summary judgment rules, but
it does not exempt them from all compliance. See
Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th
Cir. 2013) (“This rule relieves pro se litigants
from the strict application of procedural rules
and demands that a court not hold missing or
inaccurate legal terminology or muddled
draftsmanship against them.” (emphasis added));
Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir.
2012) (even if the petitioner’s filings were
construed liberally, he still failed to identify
1 The 7/24/24 Order is also available at 2024 WL 3519748.
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

4
evidence supporting his claim).
Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2018) (emphases in
Soto).
Bermejo-Barrera filed a concise statement of material
facts (“Bermejo-Barrera’s CSOF”) and a Notice and Warning to Pro
Se Prisoner Pursuant to LR99.56.2 (“Warning”) on August 18,
2025. [Dkt. nos. 46, 47.] The Warning informed Sherrell of the
requirement to file a concise statement that admits or disputes
facts detailed in Bermejo-Barrera’s CSOF. See generally Warning.
Sherrell failed to submit a concise statement disputing Bermejo-
Barrera’s CSOF and asserting additional facts supported by
admissible evidence. Sherrell’s Amended Complaint, however, was
signed under penalty of perjury. See Amended Complaint at
PageID.73. Courts must consider as evidence the factual
contentions offered in a pro se prisoner’s complaint or other
filings when considering a motion for summary judgment, but only
if the pro se prisoner’s filings “are based upon personal
knowledge” and where the pro se prisoner “attested under penalty
of perjury that the contents of the motions or pleadings are
true and correct.” See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Sherrell’s Opposition was not
signed under penalty of perjury. See Opposition at 4. Similarly,
Sherrell’s Supplement was not signed under penalty of perjury.
See Supplement at 4. To the extent that Sherrell’s factual
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

5
statements in the Amended Complaint constitute admissible
evidence addressing statements of fact in Bermejo-Barrera’s
CSOF, the Court will consider those statements of fact to be
disputed. However, where there is no factual statement in the
Amended Complaint addressing a statement in Bermejo-Barrera’s
CSOF, the Court must consider that statement of fact to be
undisputed for purposes of the Motion. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(e)(2); see also Local Rule LR56.1(g) (“For purposes of a
motion for summary judgment, material facts set forth in the
movant’s concise statement will be deemed admitted unless
controverted by a separate concise statement of the opposing
party.”).
II. 	Evidence Before the Court
Sherrell is an inmate incarcerated at MCCC. See
Amended Complaint at PageID.65; see also VINE,
https://vinelink.vineapps.com/search/HI/Person (name search for
Brian Sherrell) (last visited Jan. 22, 2026). Bermejo-Barrera is
a Registered Nurse (“RN”) and has worked at MCCC for five years.
[Bermejo-Barrera’s CSOF, Declaration of Jillian Bermejo-Barrera
(“Bermejo-Barrera Decl.”) at ¶ 1.] As an RN, Bermejo-Barrera
provides nursing services to inmates at MCCC and helps ensure
their health, safety, and well-being. [Id. at ¶ 4.]
At some point between August 22, 2022 and August 25,
2022, Sherrell fell from the top bunk of his bunk bed. See
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

6
Amended Complaint at PageID.68; Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶ 6. At
the time of the incident, Sherrell shared his two-person cell
with three other inmates. [Amended Complaint at PageID.68.]
Sherrell fell from his bed because the cell was overcrowded. See
id. As a result of the incident, Sherrell sought medical
attention, and Bermejo-Barrera attended to his injuries on
August 25, 2022. [Id.; Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶ 6]
While examining Sherrell on August 25, 2022, Bermejo-
Barrera completed an injury report where she described and
recorded contemporaneously Sherrell’s injuries and Sherrell’s
recollection of the accident. See Exh. “B,” filed under seal
8/19/25 (dkt. no. 49) (“8/25/22 Injury Report”). 2 Bermejo-Barrera
noted that Sherrell’s eyes were swollen and bruised, with a
superficial laceration to his left eyebrow, and a superficial
laceration to his chin. [Id.; Bermejo-Barrera’s CSOF at ¶ 9.]
Bermejo-Barrera recorded that, when she asked Sherrell to
describe the incident, Sherrell responded that he had a sudden
fall when he was getting off his bunk on the night of August 24,
2022. [8/25/22 Injury Report; Bermejo-Barrera’s CSOF at ¶ 8.]
Bermejo-Barrera also recorded that Sherrell denied any further
2 The 8/25/22 Injury Report is authenticated by the Bermejo-
Barrera Declaration. See Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶ 7.
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

7
injury beyond the injuries on his face. [8/25/22 Injury Report;
Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶¶ 8, 10.]
MCCC’s policy compels medical staff like Bermejo-
Barrera to photograph every area an inmate identifies as
injured, regardless of whether an injury is apparent. See
Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶ 9. Pursuant to MCCC policy, Bermejo-
Barrera took photographs of Sherrell’s injuries on August 25,
2022. See id. at ¶ 8; Exh. “C,” filed under seal 8/19/25 (dkt.
no. 50) (“8/25/22 Photographs”). 3
A few hours after Sherrell saw Bermejo-Barrera, he
underwent a segregation mental health review at a different
section of MCCC. See Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶¶ 12-13. During
the review, an MCCC psychiatric social worker, Suwann McGrath
(“McGrath”), observed Sherrell’s interactions with other
inmates. See id. at ¶ 14. McGrath contemporaneously recorded her
observations in a progress note. See Exh. “D,” filed under seal
8/19/25 (dkt. no. 51) (“8/25/22 Progress Note”). 4 The 8/25/22
Progress Note indicates that, on August 25, 2022, Sherrell was
“not in acute distress” and was “joking around” with other
3 The 8/25/22 Photographs are authenticated by the Bermejo-
Barrera Declaration. See Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶ 8.
4 The 8/25/22 Progress Note is authenticated by the Bermejo-
Barrera Declaration. See Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶ 12.
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 7 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

8
inmates. See id.; Bermejo-Barrera’s CSOF at ¶ 15; see also
Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶ 14.
Sherrell’s history of medical problems related to his
knee is detailed in an Independent Medical Records Review report
that was prepared by John K. Shuster, M.D., (“Dr. Shuster”). See
Exh. “E,” filed under seal 8/19/25 (dkt. no. 52) (“Independent
Medical Report”). 5 After reviewing Sherrell’s medical records,
Dr. Shuster concluded that Sherrell’s documented knee injuries
began in 1983, which likely included an operation on his right
knee in 1984. See id. at 47; Supplement at PageID.343 (publicly-
filed page forty-seven of the Independent Medical Report).
Dr. Shuster also concluded that Sherrell suffers from “long-
standing knee arthritis.” See Independent Medical Report at 47;
Supplement at PageID.343.
On August 22, 2022, three days before Bermejo-Barrera
treated Sherrell for his injuries, Sherrell submitted a Medical
Request form requesting a knee brace for a “bad knee.”
[Opposition, Exh. A.] The Medical Request form also stated that
Sherrell had a bad back and shoulder, but the Medical Request
form did not include a request from Sherrell for a “No Top Bunk
Memo.” See id. Between September 2022 and January 2024, Sherrell
5 The Independent Medical Report is authenticated by the
Declaration of Kendall J. Moser. See Bermejo-Barrera’s CSOF,
Declaration of Kendall J. Moser (“Moser Decl.”) at ¶ 4.
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 8 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

9
made various complaints to medical personnel regarding pain in
his right knee. See Independent Medical Report at 14-33; see
also Supplement at PageID.336-41 (publicly-filed pages 14-15,
17, 19-21 of the Independent Medical Report). On September 10,
2022, Sherrell submitted a Medical Request form where he stated
he was making a second request to be assigned to a bottom bunk
as a medical accommodation, but Dr. Shuster noted that there did
not appear to be a record of the purported first request. See
Independent Medical Report at 14-15; Supplement at PageID.336-
37. In January 2024, Sherrell underwent a total knee
replacement. See Independent Medical Report at 31; Amended
Complaint at PageID.72.
The parties dispute two categories of alleged facts
related to Sherrell’s knee injury. First, the parties dispute
the timeline and details of the injury that Sherrell suffered at
MCCC. Second, the parties dispute Bermejo-Barrera’s involvement
in treating Sherrell for the injury.
Sherrell contends that he fell twice from his bunk
bed. According to Sherrell, his first fall occurred on
August 22, 2022; [Amended Complaint at PageID.68;] the second
fall occurred on August 30, 2022, [id. at PageID.69]. Sherrell
further contends that he suffered knee and hip pain following
his falls. [Id. at PageID.68-70.] Bermejo-Barrera, on the other
hand, asserts that Sherrell only fell once from his bunk bed,
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 9 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

10
and that this fall occurred on August 24, 2022, not August 22,
2022. [Motion, Mem. in Supp. at 8.] She points out that there is
no record of Sherrell falling on August 30, 2022. See Motion,
Mem. in Supp. at 8; Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶ 16. Bermejo-
Barrera also asserts that Sherrell injured his face during his
fall and explicitly denied any further injury. [Bermejo-Barrera
Decl. at ¶¶ 8, 10, 19.]
Sherrell claims that Bermejo-Barrera was intimately
aware of his knee injury and continuously denied his requests
for treatment. First, Sherrell contends that, after his first
fall, Bermejo-Barrera denied his request for a memorandum that
would allow him to sleep on a bottom bunk. [Amended Complaint at
PageID.68.] According to Sherrell, Bermejo-Barrera denied his
bottom bunk memorandum request despite knowing that two inmates
slept near the base of the ladder that Sherrell used to descend
from his top bunk. Sherrell also contends that Bermejo-Barrera
denied his request for pain medication. [Id. at PageID.69.]
Sherrell argues that Bermejo-Barrera’s alleged refusal to grant
the bottom bunk accommodation directly resulted in his second
fall. See id. at PageID.71. Sherrell also contends that after
his second fall, he repeatedly asked Bermejo-Barrera, both
verbally and in writing, for a bottom bunk assignment, pain
medication, a knee brace, x-rays, and doctor’s visits, but all
his requests were denied. [Id. at PageID.70-71.] He argues that
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 10 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

11
these refusals resulted in sleepless nights; constant, severe
pain; and eventually his total knee replacement. [Id. at
PageID.71.]
Bermejo-Barrera states that she never medically
treated Sherrell for anything related to his knee. See Bermejo-
Barrera Decl. at ¶ 19. She also states that Sherrell never asked
her for a memorandum assigning him to a bottom bunk. See id. at
¶ 17. Dr. Shuster opined that Bermejo-Barrera’s medical records
contain “no evidence that there was a refusal for pain
medication in the month of August 2022.” [Independent Medical
Report at 46; Motion, Mem. in Supp. at 10.] Finally, Bermejo-
Barrera contends that Sherrell’s medical records contain “no
chart note, memo, medical request form responses, or other
document that [Bermejo-Barrera] wrote regarding Mr. Sherrell’s
knee.” See Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶ 18. The Court is tasked
with determining whether there is a genuine issue of material
fact that precludes summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)
(“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”).
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 11 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

12
DISCUSSION
I. 	Whether Bermejo-Barrera Violated the Eighth Amendment
Sherrell alleges a Section 1983 claim against Bermejo-
Barrera arising out of the Eighth Amendment. See Amended
Complaint at PageID.66
“Section 1983 provides a cause of action
against ‘[e]very person who, under color of’ law
deprives another of ‘rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution.’” Cornel
v. Hawaii, 37 F.4th 527, 531 (9th Cir. 2022)
(alteration in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States
was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation
was committed by a person acting under color of
state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988); Park v. City & County of Honolulu, 952
F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2020).
[7/24/24 Order at 6 (alteration in 7/24/24 Order).] State
officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983
suit “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or
constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct
was clearly established at the time.” District of Columbia v.
Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–63 (2018) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
The United States Supreme Court has long held that
“deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or
injury states a cause of action under § 1983.” Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). Sherrell claims that his Eighth
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 12 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

13
Amendment rights were violated when Bermejo-Barrera – acting
under color of state law as an employee of MCCC - denied him
adequate medical treatment, which he alleges amounts to
deliberate indifference. See Amended Complaint at PageID.68-69.
To establish a claim of inadequate medical
care, a prisoner must show both a “serious
medical need” and that an official’s response to
the need was “deliberately indifferent.” Edmo v.
Corizon, Inc., 935 F.3d 757, 785–86 (9th Cir.
2019) (per curiam).
A serious medical need is present when, for
example, the “‘failure to treat a prisoner’s
condition could result in further significant
injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction
of pain.” Id. at 785 (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). “Serious medical needs
can relate to physical, dental and mental
health.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
“To show deliberate indifference, the
plaintiff must show that the course of treatment
the [official] chose was medically unacceptable
under the circumstances and that the [official]
chose this course in conscious disregard of an
excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health.” Id. at
786 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted) (alterations in original). This is a
“high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “An inadvertent or
negligent failure to provide adequate medical
care is insufficient to establish a claim under
the Eighth Amendment.” Edmo, 935 F.3d at 786
(citation omitted). “In other words, [m]edical
malpractice does not become a constitutional
violation merely because the victim is a
prisoner.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted) (alteration in original).
[7/24/24 Order at 9 (alterations in 7/24/24 Order).]
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 13 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

14
A prison official does not act in a deliberately
indifferent manner “‘unless the official knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to inmate health or safety . . . .’” See
Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1123 n.1 (9th Cir.
2018) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct.
1970 (1994)) That is, “the official must demonstrate a
subjective awareness of the risk of harm.” Castro v. Cnty. of
Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)
(citation omitted) (emphasis in Castro). This is often referred
to as the “subjective deliberate indifference” standard. See,
e.g., Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1122 (citation omitted). Moreover, a
prisoner asserting an Eighth Amendment claim must “demonstrate
that the defendants’ actions were both an actual and proximate
cause of their injuries.” Lemire v. California, 726 F.3d 1062,
1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
A. 	Serious Medical Need
The Court finds that a reasonable juror could conclude
that Sherrell’s injury presented an objective, serious medical
need. Sherrell reported to MCCC medical staff that he had a “bad
knee” on August 22, 2022. [Opp., Exh. A (Medical Request form).]
Between September 10, 2022, and September 29, 2022, Sherrell
requested various medical accommodations including, among other
things, assignment to a bottom bunk, [Independent Medical Report
at 14,] a knee brace, pain relief medication, x-rays, and
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 14 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

15
surgery, [id. at 15-16]. See also Supplement at PageID.336-37
(publicly-filed pages fourteen to sixteen of the Independent
Medical Report). On September 11, 2022, Sherrell submitted an
MCCC Request Form where he stated that he badly strained his
knee. [Independent Medical Report at 15; Supplement at
PageID.337.6]
While Bermejo-Barrera disputes Sherrell’s assertion
that he reported a knee injury to her, see Bermejo-Barrera Decl.
at ¶¶ 10, 18-19, Bermejo-Barrera does not dispute that Sherrell
in fact suffered a knee injury at some point between August 2022
and September 2022. There is also no dispute that Sherrell’s
knee was eventually replaced and that he suffered intense pain
during the period between the August/September 2022 incident and
the January 2024 knee replacement. Viewing the record in the
light most favorable to Sherrell,7 the Court finds that Sherrell
satisfies the first part of the deliberate indifference standard
because a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Sherrell
presented a serious medical need when he fell from his bunk bed
and that the injury resulted in severe pain and further injury.
6 Sherrell submitted a copy of the September 11, 2022
Request Form, but the request section of the form cannot be read
due to the poor copy quality. See Supplement at PageID.327.
7 In considering the Motion, the Court must view the record
in the light most favorable to Sherrell as the nonmoving party.
See Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 17 F.4th 849, 855 (9th Cir.
2021).
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 15 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

16
B. 	Subjective Deliberate Indifference
To address the subjective deliberate indifference
standard, Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1122, Sherrell purports to rely on
his personal documentation of his medical care. Sherrell claims
to have copies of all written medical requests that he submitted
and that were returned to him, see Opposition at PageID.280, and
that he “kept a journal and a calendar of events pertaining to
all/any communications, circumstances, medications prescribed,
due to these falls and injuries which [he] suffered to [his]
right knee and hip,” [Amended Complaint at PageID.69-70].
Sherrell, however, only appended one medical request to his
Opposition: the August 22, 2022 Medical Request form,
[Opposition, Exh. A,] which makes no mention of Bermejo-Barrera.
In addition, Sherrell has not submitted the journal and calendar
of events that he described in the Amended Complaint.
Bermejo-Barrera argues that she was not deliberately
indifferent to Sherrell’s condition because she never saw
Sherrell to treat a knee injury. See Motion, Mem. in Supp. at
10; Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶¶ 18-19. Dr. Shuster opined in the
Independent Medical Report that Bermejo-Barrera did not deny
Sherrell’s requests for a no-top-bunk memorandum or for pain
medication. [Independent Medical Report at 46-47; Supplement at
PageID.342-43.] Sherrell, on the other hand, made several
assertions in his Amended Complaint, which contradict several of
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 16 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

17
the assertions made by Bermejo-Barrera and opinions made by
Dr. Shuster. See supra Background Section II. “When opposing
parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly
contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could
believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts
for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott
v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
The Court finds that Sherrell failed to rebut, with
any admissible evidence, Bermejo-Barrera’s assertion that she
“never saw Mr. Sherrell for anything related to his knee.” See
Bermejo-Barrera Decl. at ¶ 19. Dr. Shuster opined that:
1) Bermejo-Barrera never denied Sherrell a no-top-bunk
memorandum; 2) Bermejo-Barrera never refused Sherrell pain
medication in August 2022; and 3) Sherrell denied having
suffered any injuries other than his eyes, eyebrow, and chin
injuries when he saw Bermejo-Barrera on August 25, 2022. See
Independent Medical Report at 46-47; Supplement at PageID.342-
43. The medical records support Dr. Shuster’s opinions. See,
e.g., Exh. “B” (8/25/22 Injury Report); Exh. “C” (8/25/22
Photographs); Exh. “D” (8/25/22 Progress Note). Despite a
voluminous record of medical requests, appointment notes, and
other entries in Sherrell’s medical file, see generally
Independent Medical Report, there is only one record evincing a
meeting between Bermejo-Barrera and Sherrell, which occurred on
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 17 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

18
August 25, 2022. See Exh. “B” (8/25/22 Injury Report). According
to that August 25, 2022 record, Sherrell did not report a knee
injury or any knee pain during that meeting. See id. Sherrell
has presented no records showing that he asked Bermejo-Barrera
for a no-top-bunk memorandum, despite his assertion that he kept
a journal and calendar of the relevant events, see Amended
Complaint at PageID.70.
In light of Bermejo-Barrera’s testimony in her
declaration, the Independent Medical Report, the medical
records, and the fact that all of Sherrell’s other medical
requests appear to have been well-documented, the Court finds
that Bermejo-Barrera has carried her burden to demonstrate that
she did not deliberately ignore Sherrell’s medical requests.
Accord Davis v. Diaz, Case No. 3:18-cv-00264-SLG, 2020 WL
1877951, at *7-8 (D. Alaska Apr. 15, 2020) (granting the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the
plaintiff’s medical record directly contradicted the plaintiff’s
assertion in his complaint that the prison’s nurse did not order
an EKG or refer him to a physician’s assistant). A reasonable
juror crediting Sherrell’s factual statements in the Amended
Complaint could not conclude that Bermejo-Barrera knew of and
deliberately disregarded a serious risk of harm to Sherrell.
See, e.g., Brummett v. Teske, 344 F. App’x 373, 374 (9th Cir.
2009) (affirming summary judgment for three of the defendants
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 18 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

19
where the plaintiff failed to show that those defendants had
actual knowledge that the plaintiff’s upper bunk assignment
posed a substantial risk of serious harm (citing Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811
(1994))). Sherrell only offers conclusory statements in the
Amended Complaint to rebut Bermejo-Barrera’s evidence, which is
insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment that is
supported by the record. See Chima v. Obedoza, 72 F. App’x 577,
578 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding claims by the inmate plaintiff that
the defendants failed to take his vital signs and examine him
were insufficient to demonstrate material issues of fact where
the inmate’s “conclusory denials” contradicted by his medical
records) (citing United States v. Various Slot Machines on Guam,
658 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Even on a motion for summary
judgment, a court is not compelled to give weight to an
allegation that is incontrovertibly demonstrated to be
false.”)). 8 Thus, the Court concludes that Sherrell fails to
8 In his Supplement, Sherrell asserts, without any evidence,
that there was an “EHR system failure” on June 13, 2022, which
resulted in “missing EHR data” from June 2022 to September 2022.
[Supplement at PageID.323.] The Court cannot consider the
information asserted in the Supplement because the Supplement
was not signed under penalty of perjury. See Jones v. Blanas,
393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004). Even if the Court were to
consider the assertions made in Sherrell’s Supplement, Sherrell
fails to present any evidence to show that Bermejo-Barrera’s
allegedly deliberately indifferent medical treatment was the
actual and proximate cause of Sherrell’s knee replacement and
extreme pain. See infra Discussion Section I.C.
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 19 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

20
satisfy the second part of the deliberate indifference standard
because a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude that
Bermejo-Barrera knew of and disregarded the excessive risk to
Sherrell’s health or safety.
C. 	Causation
Even assuming arguendo that Bermejo-Barrera was
subjectively aware of Sherrell’s knee injury, Sherrell fails to
rebut the assertion that Sherrell’s history of knee problems,
including at least one previous surgery and years of arthritis,
were the actual and proximate causes of the right knee
replacement. See Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074. After having reviewed
Sherrell’s medical records, Dr. Shuster opined in the
Independent Medical Report that Sherrell’s knee replacement
surgery “was more likely than not due to other causes, including
long-standing knee arthritis and previous knee injuries
documented all the way back to 1983.” [Independent Medical
Report at 47; Supplement at PageID.343.] Sherrell did not
identify any evidence that rebuts Dr. Shuster’s conclusion.
Thus, assuming arguendo that Bermejo-Barrera denied Sherrell’s
“No Top Bunk” request and pain medication after his August 2022
fall and reviewing the record in the light most favorable to
Sherrell, the Court concludes that there is no evidence
suggesting that Bermejo-Barrera’s medical treatment following
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 20 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

21
Sherrell’s fall or falls from his bunk bed was the actual and
proximate cause of Sherrell’s knee replacement and extreme pain.
Because Sherrell fails to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact regarding Bermejo-Barrera’s subjective awareness
and causation between Bermejo-Barrera’s allegedly deficient
medical treatment and Sherrell’s injuries, the Court concludes
that Bermejo-Barrera is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
This conclusion is reached after reviewing all of the
submissions in the light most favorable to Sherrell, as the non-
moving party. This conclusion is also reached after liberally
construing Sherrell’s arguments and submissions because the
Court recognizes that he is not a lawyer and is representing
himself.
II. 	Whether Bermejo-Barrera Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity
Bermejo-Barrera also argues that she is entitled to
summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. [Motion,
Mem. in Supp. at 11-12.] The defense of qualified immunity
shields government officials from liability for damages, Taylor
v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822, 825 (2015) (per curiam), but becomes
relevant only if a court determines that a constitutional
violation has occurred. Because the Court has determined that no
constitutional violation has occurred and that Bermejo-Barrera
is entitled to summary judgment on Sherrell’s Eighth Amendment
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 21 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

22
claim on this ground, the Court need not address the qualified
immunity defense.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Bermejo-Barrera’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, filed August 18, 2025, is GRANTED.
Summary judgment is granted in favor of Bermejo-Barrera as to
the claim in Sherrell’s Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint – First
Amended Complaint, filed July 18, 2024, alleged against her in
her individual capacity. There being no remaining claims in this
case, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to enter final
judgment on February 23, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 22 of 23
PageID.<pageID>

23
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, January 23, 2026.
BRIAN KEITH SHERRELL VS. MAUI COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL CENTER ET
AL.; CV 24-00183 LEK-KJM; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 1:24-cv-00183-LEK-KJM Document 70 Filed 01/23/26 Page 23 of 23
PageID.<pageID>