Bergner v. County of San Mateo
- Charles Breyer
- 3:24-cv-08926
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bergner v. County of San Mateo, Judge Breyer granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.
Robert Bergner’s amended complaint against the County of San Mateo and 50 unnamed individuals was dismissed with prejudice; the defendants prevailed on their motion.
What happened
Robert Bergner sued the County of San Mateo and 50 unnamed individuals after his son, Hunter Bergner, died by suicide while in custody at a county jail.
After the court dismissed his first complaint, Bergner added an allegation that jail staff saw his son visibly distraught during a cell-to-cell check but took no action. The court ruled that this did not adequately allege a county policy or custom or show that defendants knew, or should have known, that his son faced a heightened risk of suicide.
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, concluding that allowing another amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Bergner v. County of San Mateo · No. 3:24-cv-08926
- Charles Breyer
- Sept. 4, 2025
Background
Robert Bergner sued the County of San Mateo and 50 unnamed individuals after his son, Hunter Bergner, died by suicide while in custody at Maguire Correctional Facility, a county-operated jail.
The court had previously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Bergner’s first complaint. It ruled that Bergner had not adequately alleged a municipal policy or custom needed to hold the County liable, and had not alleged enough specific facts to show that defendants knew or should have known that Hunter Bergner faced a heightened risk of suicide.
Amended Complaint
Bergner amended his complaint by adding one allegation. He alleged that, on the morning of the suicide, jail staff provided meals and checked inmates cell by cell; during that check, Hunter Bergner appeared visibly distraught in front of defendant deputies, who took no action.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that this allegation did not cure either pleading deficiency. The allegation about meal distribution and cell-to-cell checks did not support the existence of a County policy or custom of denying anxiety medication or treatment, or of ignoring signs that an inmate was at risk of suicide. The court also found that the vague description of Hunter Bergner as “visibly distraught” did not make it plausible that defendants knew or should have known he faced a heightened risk of suicide.
Because Bergner had not fixed the deficiencies that the court had identified in its earlier order, the court concluded that further permission to amend would be futile.
Ruling
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with prejudice. The opinion also states that the court resolved the matter based on the written submissions and vacated the scheduled hearing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.