Faison v. Alameda County

Background

Deontae Charles Faison, represented by guardian ad litem Theresa Flores, sued Alameda County, the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD), and EBRPD Officers Knea and Filice. The complaint alleged that Officer Knea pursued Faison, used a taser on him while he was entering or in estuary water, and continued using the taser while he struggled in the water. It further alleged that County and EBRPD officers watched him struggle for about 40 minutes without providing aid, pulled him from the water only after he drowned, and did not promptly obtain or provide medical assistance.

The operative complaint asserted four state-law claims against Alameda County: a claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Act; battery; negligence; and false imprisonment. Faison also moved for permission to file a further amended complaint adding Falck Medical Services as a defendant and asserting professional negligence against Falck. Alameda County moved for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims against it.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Because the deadline in the scheduling order for amending pleadings had passed, the court applied the standard requiring Faison first to show good cause to modify that order. Faison argued that he first learned of Falck’s presence or conduct through a March 7, 2025 email. The court found that the email did not establish good cause. The initial complaint included images from body-camera footage showing Falck’s presence, and Faison had possessed that footage since at least June 17, 2024. The court also noted that Faison filed several pleadings after learning of Falck’s involvement but did not seek to add Falck in them.

The court therefore denied Faison’s motion for leave to amend. It also concluded that further amendment of the claims against Alameda County would be futile. The body-camera footage showed County officers did not touch or physically control Faison, did not participate in his apprehension, and appeared to watch from the scene while EBRPD officers and emergency medical technicians attended to him. The court found that the footage and the allegations could not support the proposed County claims.

Judgment on the Pleadings

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) tests whether the pleadings show that no material factual issue remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court generally accepts the nonmoving party’s allegations, but it considered the body-camera footage because the complaint incorporated it by reference and Faison did not challenge its accuracy or reliability. The court viewed ambiguities in the footage in Faison’s favor.

Bane Act claim. The court held that Faison did not plausibly allege that County officers intentionally interfered with his constitutional rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The complaint did not allege that County officers apprehended Faison, had custody over him, acted pursuant to a common plan with EBRPD officers, or set in motion the acts that allegedly violated his rights. The court rejected liability based merely on the County officers’ alleged presence and failure to intervene. It dismissed the Bane Act claim against the County.

Battery claim. The court explained that a California battery claim against a police officer requires an unreasonable use of force. Because the complaint did not allege that any County official used force against Faison, the court dismissed the battery claim against the County.

Negligence claim. Under California law, the negligence claim required allegations of a duty, breach, causation, and actual loss or damage. The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that County officers owed Faison a duty to provide medical care. It found no alleged affirmative act by County officers that created or increased the danger Faison faced. The court therefore dismissed the negligence claim against the County.

False imprisonment claim. False imprisonment requires intentional, nonconsensual confinement without lawful privilege for an appreciable period. The court held that the complaint did not allege that County officers took Faison into custody, intentionally confined him, participated in his apprehension, or caused EBRPD’s detention of him. The court dismissed the false imprisonment claim against the County.

State-law immunities

Alameda County also argued that several California Government Code provisions immunized it from liability. The court treated those provisions as affirmative defenses. It held that dismissal on that basis at the pleading stage was improper because the asserted immunities were not obvious from the complaint and did not involve undisputed facts. In particular, applying one provision would require deciding whether Faison was resisting arrest or was an escaping or escaped arrested person, and the County did not adequately explain how another provision applied if Faison was already in EBRPD custody. The court denied the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent it relied on those affirmative defenses.

Disposition

The court denied Faison’s motion for leave to amend. It granted Alameda County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend and dismissed all claims against the County. The court separately denied the County’s motion insofar as it was based on the asserted state-law immunities. The order states that it disposed of Docket Nos. 63, 66, and 67.