Monday, June 29, 2026
Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Deputy Not Liable for Death of Man After He Left Her Car
Majority, in Finding Qualified Immunity, Says Officer, Taking Ill Person to Hospital, Had Choice of Acceding to His Demand to Leave Vehicle or Hold Him Without Probable Cause; Dissenter Says He Was Placed in Peril
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found discretionary immunity on the part of a deputy sheriff who undertook to provide a courtesy ride to a man who had been discharged from a hospital, determined based on his conduct that she needed to take him to a hospital and set out for the nearest one, but, when he groaned as if he were about to defecate, let him out of the vehicle, with his trying to board a moving train and being killed.
Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett and Senior Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith signed the memorandum opinion affirming a summary judgment on constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy Breana Fite by Deborah Moller, mother of the decedent, Bret Breunig. They questioned how Fite could have done other than allow Breunig to exit her car when she had no probable cause to detain him.
Their opinion also upholds summary judgment in favor of Fite on claims under California law and for the county in connection with alleged municipal liability.
Circuit Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. dissented, arguing that qualified immunity is defeated in the action against Fite in light of her violation of a “clearly established” right of the decedent against being exposed to a state-created danger by allowing him to leave the automobile.
2021 Events
Fite was informed on the morning of Aug. 18, 2021, that the security office at Loma Linda University Medical Center had complained of a man who had been discharged from the hospital lingering on the premises.
She came to the facility and encountered Breunig, offering to give him a ride home; she followed his directions to a house; he was unable to unlock the door; it was unclear that he actually resided there in light of his saying that he was homeless; checking, she found he had been arrested on suspicion of vehicle burglary, theft, and drug offenses.
The deputy decided to take him to a nearby hospital. He demanded to exit the vehicle but she insisted it would be dangerous to leave him in the middle of nowhere and that she was obliged to take him to a medical facility.
After she eventually pulled over and told Breunig to get out, she made a U-turn and drove off. Breunig ran toward the passing train, seeking to get into it and was decapitated.
An autopsy showed he had been under the influence of drugs.
District Court Proceedings
Moller argued in the District Court that Fite violated two “clearly established” rights: that of due care when a “special relationship” has been formed and the right not be exposed to a state-created danger.
Fisher said her Dec. 1, 2023 ruling that “Moller identifies no authority to establish a special relationship when the individual voluntarily walks away from the officer” and that neither case cited by the plaintiff as to state-created dangers “involved an individual who voluntarily walked away from the officer and left the officer with the choice to either detain the individual without probable cause or allow the individual to leave.”
Bennett and Smith said in their opinion affirming Fisher’s decision that while the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the a special relationship can exist as to a person subjected to “incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty,” that does not extend to Breunig having been “detained for a 13-minute-long car ride.”
They declared that “the deliberate indifference requirement” of a state-created danger claim is not met with respect to Fite’s conduct toward the decedent, explaining:
“Deputy Fite left Breunig on the side of the street near a train crossing, but it was not a known and obvious consequence of that action that Breunig would twice attempt to jump onto that train and harm himself in the process.”
Mendoza’s Dissent
Mendoza said in his dissent that a state-created danger entails affirmative conduct placing a person in danger and “deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger.” He wrote:
“Here, both requirements are satisfied.”
The justice elaborated:
“We know that Deputy Fite left Breunig by the side of the road, rather than at a hospital as she had promised to do. She did this even though she saw a moving train nearby and knew that Breunig was both in withdrawal and struggling to walk. There was obvious danger.”
He added that “[i]t would be difficult to characterize Deputy Fite’s final actions toward Breunig as anything other than abandonment,” evidencing deliberate indifference.
The case is Moller v. County of San Bernardino, 25-74.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company