Faison v. Alameda County
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-06059
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Faison v. Alameda County, Judge Corley denied the County’s request for separate judgment because remaining claims involve the same facts.
Alameda County could not obtain a separate judgment for an immediate appeal at this stage. The plaintiff’s claims against the East Bay Regional Park District and one of its officers continued.
What happened
In Faison v. Alameda County, the plaintiff’s claims arose from an April 5, 2024 incident in which an East Bay Regional Park District officer allegedly used a Taser while the plaintiff was in a park lake. The plaintiff alleged that Alameda County and district officers did not provide timely aid, and that the plaintiff later became unresponsive and remained in a coma and on life support. The court had already granted Alameda County judgment on the pleadings without allowing an amended complaint; claims against the district and one of its officers continued.
Alameda County asked the court to enter a separate final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which can allow an appeal before the entire case ends. The court agreed that its earlier order fully resolved the claims against the County, but found that the case should not be split into separate appeals because the claims against all defendants arose from the same events and would involve many of the same facts, witnesses, and issues.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied Alameda County’s motion for a separate judgment and vacated the scheduled hearing. The court stated that the case should proceed toward one complete resolution rather than separate appeals, and the case continued against the East Bay Regional Park District and its officer.
The detailed version
- Faison v. Alameda County · No. 3:24-cv-06059
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 24, 2025
Background
The Second Amended Complaint concerned the alleged tasing of the plaintiff on April 5, 2024, while he was in a park lake. The complaint alleged that an East Bay Regional Park District officer tased him and that Alameda County officers, along with district officers, watched him struggle in the water for approximately 40 minutes without providing aid. It further alleged that officers did not promptly request emergency medical services, did not tell medical personnel that the plaintiff had been tased, and did not perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation while he lay unresponsive on shore. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff had remained in a coma and on life support.
The court previously granted Alameda County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend on August 1, 2025. The case continued against the East Bay Regional Park District and one of its officers.
Motion for separate judgment
Alameda County moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for entry of a separate judgment. Rule 54(b) permits a court, in an action involving multiple claims or parties, to enter a final judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties when two requirements are met: the resolved claims or parties must have been finally disposed of and sufficiently separated from the rest of the case, and there must be no just reason to delay judgment.
The court found that its order resolving the claims against Alameda County was an ultimate disposition of those claims. It nevertheless concluded that there was a reason to delay entry of a separate judgment: judicial administration. The claims against the County and the remaining defendants were based on the same factual situation. A separate appeal could therefore require the appellate court to consider the same facts and issues more than once. If the County’s judgment were reversed, the district court might also have to hold a second jury trial involving the same witnesses after the trial against the remaining defendants.
Disposition
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied Alameda County’s motion for a Rule 54(b) separate judgment. The order also vacated the October 2, 2025 hearing and disposed of Docket No. 89. The opinion stated that the case would continue against the East Bay Regional Park District and its officer.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.