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 in favor of the defendants on the plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and her state law claims. Regarding the individual defendant’s qualified immunity, the court applied a two-step inquiry but addressed only the second step: whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. The court held that neither the plaintiff’s special relationship claim nor her state-created danger claim were clearly established. For the special relationship claim, the court found that the cited district court case, *Lum v. County of San Joaquin*, was an unpublished opinion and factually distinguishable because a 13-minute car ride does not constitute the “incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty” required to trigger such a duty under *DeShaney*. For the state-created danger claim, the court determined that the cited precedents, *Munger* and *Ostrander*, did not clearly establish the right because the specific circumstances in those cases—leaving an individual in subfreezing temperatures or in a high-crime area—made the resulting harm a “known and obvious consequence” of the officers’ actions, whereas it was not a known or obvious consequence that the decedent would attempt to jump onto a train. Regarding the municipal liability claim against San Bernardino County under *Monell*, the court affirmed summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a “longstanding practice or custom.” The court found that the three incidents cited by the plaintiff were insufficient to establish such a practice, noting that one incident involved no constitutional violation and the remaining two were separated by a twelve-year gap, lacking the necessary duration, frequency, and consistency. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the claim under California’s Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1), ruling that even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was no evidence that the deputy threatened, intimidated, or coerced the decedent when ordering him to exit the vehicle. Finally, the court affirmed the judgment as a matter of law on the negligence claim under California law, holding that the deputy owed no legal duty to protect the decedent from his own suicidal or reckless conduct and that the decedent’s attempt to board the train constituted a superseding cause of his injury. The practical consequence is that the plaintiff’s appeal is denied, and the district court’s rulings in favor of the defendants stand. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.