Faison v. Alameda County
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-06059
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Faison v. Alameda County, Judge Corley denied EBRP’s motion to dismiss, finding the alleged failure-to-train claim plausibly stated a constitutional-liability claim.
The ruling affects Deontae Charles Faison’s § 1983 municipal-liability claim against the East Bay Regional Park District and EBRP’s motion to dismiss that claim. It does not decide the ultimate merits of the claim.
What happened
In Faison v. Alameda County, Deontae Charles Faison and other plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using a taser on him in an estuary and failing to provide aid. He brought claims under a federal civil-rights law against police officers, Alameda County, and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRP).
EBRP asked the court to dismiss the claim that it was responsible for the alleged constitutional violation because of its policies or training. The court found that the allegations plausibly supported a failure-to-train claim, including allegations about taser use, pursuit procedures, and providing medical aid.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied EBRP’s motion to dismiss. The court did not need to decide whether the other theories supporting the claim were adequately pleaded because the failure-to-train theory was sufficient at this stage.
The detailed version
- Faison v. Alameda County · No. 3:24-cv-06059
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 21, 2025
Background
Deontae Charles Faison alleged that defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by tasing him while he was in an estuary and failing to provide him aid. He brought individual claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, against police officers, Alameda County, and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRP).
EBRP moved to dismiss the § 1983 municipal-liability claim against it for failure to state a claim. Municipal liability under the rule discussed in the opinion requires facts supporting an inference that the plaintiff had a constitutional right, the municipality had a policy, the policy showed deliberate indifference to that right, and the policy caused the constitutional violation.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Faison plausibly pleaded a failure-to-train theory of municipal liability. The opinion described allegations that an officer tased Faison while he was in the estuary in violation of EBRP and the taser manufacturer’s policies; that officers watched Faison struggle in the water for 40 minutes without providing aid; that he was removed only after losing consciousness; and that officers then failed to administer medical aid, also allegedly violating EBRP policy.
The court concluded that these allegations supported an inference that EBRP failed to train officers about taser use and pursuit procedures. It also concluded that the alleged need for training on taser use and what to do after a taser is deployed could be considered so obvious that inadequate training plausibly amounted to deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.
The court explained that, at the pleading stage, different municipal-liability theories are separate arguments supporting one claim. Because the failure-to-train theory was adequately pleaded, the court did not evaluate the plausibility of Faison’s other theories.
Disposition
Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied EBRP’s motion to dismiss. The order disposed of Docket No. 48.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.