Estate of Hunter Bergner v. San Mateo County Sheriff's Office

Background

Hunter Bergner was incarcerated at Maguire Correctional Facility in March 2024 after a conviction on what the complaint called a “minor firearms criminal charge.” The complaint alleged that Bergner was despondent, expressed hopelessness and despair to unidentified custody and medical staff, and told his girlfriend during a video call that he was experiencing anxiety and seeing a therapist. Later that day, correctional officers conducted checks, and Bergner’s cellmate found him hanging from a light fixture. He had already died.

Bergner’s estate, his wife Patricia Colet, and his children L.B.1, L.B.2, and S.B. sued San Mateo County, the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Christina Corpus, and 20 unnamed defendants. The unnamed defendants were described generally as law-enforcement, medical, supervisory, training, or policymaking personnel.

The amended complaint asserted ten claims: two federal civil-rights claims by the estate for failure to protect Bergner and failure to provide medical care; a federal civil-rights claim by his wife and children concerning their familial relationship; a federal claim against the County and Sheriff’s Office based on municipal liability; a federal supervisory-liability claim against Sheriff Corpus and supervisory Doe defendants; negligence; medical malpractice; liability under California Government Code § 845.6; a California Bane Act claim; and declaratory relief.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Under that standard, a complaint must allege enough facts to make liability plausible, and the court generally accepts factual allegations as true but does not accept unsupported legal conclusions as facts.

Rulings

Unnamed defendants. The court dismissed all allegations against the Doe defendants without prejudice. The problem was not simply that the defendants were unnamed. The complaint did not allege specific facts showing each Doe defendant’s personal involvement, what role that person had, or what that person did in connection with Bergner’s death. The court allowed amendment to allege specific facts demonstrating personal involvement.

Because Claims 1 through 3 were asserted only against the Doe defendants, the court did not separately address those claims after dismissing the Doe allegations.

Municipal liability. The court rejected the argument that the Sheriff’s Office could not be sued under the municipal-liability doctrine recognized in Monell v. Department of Social Services. But it dismissed the claim because the alleged prior deaths in County jails did not establish a sufficiently longstanding and consistent custom of deliberate indifference to mental-health care or suicide risks. The court also rejected the ratification theory because the complaint did not allege facts showing how Sheriff Corpus could have known about the alleged unconstitutional conduct involving Bergner.

Supervisory liability. The court dismissed the supervisory-liability claim against Sheriff Corpus because the complaint did not allege facts about actions she took, or facts she knew or should have known, that led to Bergner’s death.

Negligence and wrongful death. The court dismissed the negligence-based wrongful-death claim. It found that the complaint did not adequately allege a duty or causation. The alleged facts showed that some unspecified jail staff knew Bergner had expressed hopelessness and despair and that two employees conducted cursory security checks, but they did not establish that anyone knew he was experiencing suicidal thoughts. The court also concluded that Bergner’s own act was an intervening cause under the allegations presented.

Medical malpractice. The court dismissed the medical-malpractice claims against the County, Sheriff’s Office, and sheriff with prejudice because the complaint did not allege that those defendants were medical providers and the claims were futile. “With prejudice” means those claims cannot be refiled in an amended complaint against those defendants.

California Government Code § 845.6. The court dismissed this claim because the complaint did not allege that any defendant knew or had reason to know that Bergner needed immediate medical care. The court said that the alleged knowledge of hopelessness and despair, without more, was insufficient to establish that required knowledge.

Bane Act. The court dismissed the Bane Act claim because it relied on the same deliberate-indifference allegations that failed elsewhere and did not allege the specific intent required for a Bane Act claim.

Declaratory relief. The court dismissed the declaratory-relief claim because it was based on the unsuccessful federal civil-rights claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss in full. It granted leave to amend within 28 days for all claims except the medical-malpractice claims identified in the conclusion as claims against the County, Sheriff’s Office, sheriff, and Supervisor Does. The opinion’s discussion expressly addresses with-prejudice dismissal of the medical-malpractice claims against the County, Sheriff’s Office, and sheriff; its conclusion also refers to Supervisor Does.