Daniel Fernandez v. California Highway Patrol
708 F. App'x 470
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- On Sept. 20, 2013, CHP Officer Daniel Howard stopped Daniel Fernandez for speeding (120 mph) and lane splitting, impounded his motorcycle for improper licensing, and released him.
- Fernandez told Howard he lived nearby, said he was sober, and stated he would walk home; Howard released him on a surface street around 10:00 p.m. within walking distance of open businesses.
- Fernandez walked about a mile, entered a freeway, and was later harmed; he sued Howard and the CHP under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment due process) and California negligence law.
- Howard and the CHP moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity; the district court denied summary judgment, finding genuine disputes on whether Howard endangered Fernandez and was deliberately indifferent.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed only the qualified-immunity question on appeal, applying the two-step qualified immunity test and the Woods v. Ostrander “release into known or obvious danger” framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Howard’s release of Fernandez into a dangerous situation violated Fernandez’s Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights | Fernandez argues Howard released him into a known/obvious danger by leaving him on a public road at night without transportation | Howard argues facts show a reasonable officer would not have known the release created a dangerous situation (near businesses, Fernandez sober, said he lived nearby) | Court assumed arguendo there might be a constitutional violation but did not decide the question because of step two (not reached) |
| Whether the asserted right was clearly established such that Howard is not entitled to qualified immunity | Fernandez contends existing precedent (Woods) put Howard on notice that releasing someone into known danger can violate due process | Howard contends the undisputed facts would not have given a reasonable officer notice that releasing Fernandez was unconstitutional | Court held a reasonable officer would not have had notice here; Howard entitled to qualified immunity; summary judgment denial reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (describing collateral-order review of qualified-immunity denials)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step test; courts may decide order of steps)
- Woods v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1989) (officer may lose immunity when releasing someone into known or obvious danger)
- Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Woods and discussing release-into-danger standard)