Case Explained: MOLLER, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 Docket: 5:22-cv-01306-DSF-MAR The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant Deputy Breana Fite on Plaintiff Moller’s federal civil rights claims and her state law negligence claim, as well as the dismissal of the municipal liability and Bane Act claims against San Bernardino County. The court held that Deputy Fite was entitled to qualified immunity because Moller failed to demonstrate that a constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Specifically, the court found that the cited district court case *Lum v. County of San Joaquin* did not clearly establish a special relationship claim because a 13-minute car ride does not constitute the “incarceration” or “similar restraint of personal liberty” required by *DeShaney v. Winnebago County*. Furthermore, the court determined that existing precedent (*Munger* and *Wood*) did not clearly establish a state-created danger claim, as the specific harm suffered—Breunig attempting to jump onto a train—was not a “known or obvious consequence” of leaving him on the side of the road in the same way hypothermia was known in *Munger* or aggravated crime was known in *Wood*. Regarding municipal liability under *Monell*, the court affirmed that Moller failed to meet her burden of proving a “longstanding practice or custom” of unconstitutional conduct, noting that her evidence consisted of only two incidents separated by twelve years and one case where no violation occurred. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the Bane Act claim due to a lack of evidence regarding threats, intimidation, or coercion, and affirmed judgment as a matter of law on the negligence claim because Deputy Fite owed no legal duty to protect Breunig from his own suicidal or irrational conduct, and Breunig’s actions constituted a superseding cause. Consequently, the case is dismissed in favor of the defendants with no further proceedings on the merits. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.