UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TODD D’BRAUNSTEIN, No. 22-55237 Conservator over Steven D’Braunstein and his Estate, D.C. No. 8:19-cv-01553- Plaintiff-Appellant, JVS-KES

v. OPINION CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; SAMANTHA DIAZ-DURAZO, California Highway Patrol Officer; DOES, 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 26, 2024 Seattle, Washington Filed March 12, 2025 Before: Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel A. Bress, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bress; Partial Dissent by Judge Lee 2 D’BRAUNSTEIN V. CHP

SUMMARY *

Qualified Immunity/Medical Care

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment for California Highway Patrol Officer Samantha Diaz-Durazo on qualified immunity grounds in Steven D’Braunstein’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was denied adequate medical care. D’Braunstein was involved in a serious single-vehicle accident. Durazo arrived at the scene of the accident and found D’Braunstein disoriented and in physical distress. She did not call medical personnel. Instead, roughly 45 minutes after arriving on the scene, she arrested him after deciding he was on drugs and took him to jail. When a nurse at the jail refused to admit D’Braunstein due to his medical condition, Durazo transported him to the hospital. It turned out that D’Braunstein had suffered a stroke. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require state actors to provide adequate medical care in certain circumstances when the government confines a person or otherwise restricts his liberty. The key question in assessing an alleged violation is whether the officer’s provision (or deprivation) of medical care was objectively unreasonable. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to D’Braunstein, a reasonable jury could find that Durazo violated D’Braunstein’s constitutional rights by failing to * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. D’BRAUNSTEIN V. CHP 3

summon prompt medical care, considering the serious nature of the collision and his evident symptoms of distress. A jury could find that Durazo’s apparent belief that D’Braunstein did not need medical attention was based on an unreasonable mistake of fact or judgment. If that is true, Durazo’s failure to summon prompt medical care was a violation of clearly established law, which provides that officers must seek to provide an injured detainee or arrestee with objectively reasonable medical care in the face of medical necessity creating a substantial and obvious risk of serious harm, including by summoning medical assistance. Dissenting in part, Judge Lee agreed with the majority that a jury could find a constitutional violation. But Durazo was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law requiring her to call for emergency medical help when there were no obvious and clear signs of an urgent medical necessity.

COUNSEL Stuart B. Esner (argued) and Kathleen J. Becket, Esner Chang Boyer & Murphy, Pasadena, California; Luis A. Carrillo, Michael S. Carrillo, and J. Miguel Flores, Carrillo Law Firm LLP, Pasadena, California; for Plaintiff- Appellant. Nathan G. Guttman (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Rob Bonta, California Attorney General; Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, California; Vickie P. Whitney, Deputy Attorney