Estate of Brandon Tranberg-Hoadley v. Martin-Leal

── Estate of Brandon Tranberg-Hoadley v. Martin-Leal ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ESTATE OF BRANDON TRANBERG- No. 24-6832 HOADLEY, by and through his successors D.C. No. in interest, Melanie Tranberg and Mark 2:22-cv-02334-FWS-AS Hoadley; MELANIE TRANBERG; MARK HOADLEY, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. CITY OF GARDENA, Defendant - Appellant, GARDENA POLICE DEPARTMENT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ROCIO MARTIN-LEAL, AKA Doe 9, DOES, 1 through 5, 10, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, VICTOR SALDANA, AKA Doe 6, MICHAEL SPINOSA, AKA Doe 7, GUILLERMO TINOCO, AKA Doe 8, Defendants. ESTATE OF BRANDON TRANBERG- No. 24-6835 HOADLEY; MELANIE TRANBERG; MARK HOADLEY, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Plaintiffs - Appellees, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02334-FWS-AS v. ROCIO MARTIN-LEAL, AKA Doe 9, Defendant - Appellant, CITY OF GARDENA, VICTOR SALDANA, AKA Doe 6, MICHAEL SPINOSA, AKA Doe 7, GUILLERMO TINOCO, AKA Doe 8, GARDENA POLICE DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DOES, 1 through 5, 10, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fred W. Slaughter, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 24, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: FRIEDLAND and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and TRAUM, District Judge;** Dissent by Judge Traum. This § 1983 action arises from the suicide of Brandon Tranberg-Hoadley while he was detained at a city jail. Tranberg-Hoadley’s parents and his estate (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant Rocio Martin-Leal was ** The Honorable Anne R. Traum, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. 2 24-6832 deliberately indifferent to Tranberg-Hoadley’s risk of suicide in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs further allege that Martin-Leal is liable for wrongful death under state law and that Defendant City of Gardena (the “City”) is vicariously liable for wrongful death. Martin-Leal appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity. Both Defendants appeal the denial of Martin-Leal’s statutory defense under California Government Code § 845.6 to Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim, and the City appeals the denial of summary judgment on the merits of the wrongful death claim. Reviewing de novo, Moore v. Garnand, 83 F.4th 743, 749 (9th Cir. 2023), we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and dismiss the remainder of Defendants’ appeal. 1. We have jurisdiction to review Martin-Leal’s appeal of the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. Where, as here, an interlocutory appeal “raises purely legal questions . . . such as whether [the officer’s] alleged conduct violated clearly established law,” we have jurisdiction to “review those issues” under the collateral order doctrine. Est. of Anderson v. Marsh, 985 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2021). In doing so, we must “assum[e] the facts as alleged by [plaintiffs] to be true.” Moore, 83 F.4th at 748 (citation modified). By contrast, we lack jurisdiction to review Defendants’ appeal of the district court’s