Fanaro v. County of Contra Costa

Background

Jearhamel Jordan Fanaro brought claims arising from an attack at the Martinez Detention Facility in Contra Costa County. He sued the County, inmate attackers, and Sheriff’s Deputies Omar De Leon and Antonio Rosas. He alleged that the deputies helped facilitate the attack or overlooked evidence that it was occurring.

The order addressed De Leon and Rosas’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule requires dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The motion challenged some, but not all, of the claims and legal theories asserted against the deputies.

Monell Liability

De Leon and Rosas sought dismissal of claims one, two, and four to the extent those claims relied on Monell liability. Monell liability is a theory under which a public entity may be liable for certain policies, customs, or practices; the court explained that the deputies themselves were not public entities and therefore could not be sued under that theory.

Fanaro did not oppose dismissal of claims two and four. The court granted this part of the motion, dismissed claims two and four with prejudice, and dismissed claim one to the extent it rested on Monell liability. The order did not state that all theories in claim one were dismissed.

California Constitutional Due Process Claim

De Leon and Rosas moved to dismiss Fanaro’s request for money damages under claim six, which invoked the due-process provision of Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution. Applying the California Supreme Court’s framework for deciding whether a constitutional provision supports a damages action, the court concluded that money damages were unavailable for the theories Fanaro articulated.

The court also noted that Fanaro’s opposition referred to an Eighth Amendment right rather than the California due-process provision identified in claim six. The court stated that money damages would not be available even if he had properly pursued a claim under California’s prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment. It dismissed the claim for money damages in claim six with prejudice.

Unruh Civil Rights Act Claim

The seventh claim arose under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on specified protected characteristics, including race. Fanaro argued that the deputies knew he was Filipino-American while the Norteños were primarily Latino, creating a plausible inference that they discriminated against him by supporting the attack.

The court found that these allegations did not plausibly show racial discrimination. It concluded that the deputies’ possible awareness of Fanaro’s race, and the different racial composition of the Norteños, were not enough. Because Fanaro had already been given an opportunity to amend his race-related allegations, the court dismissed the Unruh Act claim with prejudice.

Negligent Policies, Customs, or Practices

The eighth claim alleged that De Leon and Rosas were negligent in maintaining or failing to maintain policies, customs, or practices intended to prevent the attack. The court held that this theory required the deputies to have some authority over those policies, customs, or practices. Fanaro did not allege that they had such authority and expressly described them as deputies. The court dismissed claim eight with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted De Leon and Rosas’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, claims two and four were dismissed with prejudice; claim one was dismissed insofar as it rested on Monell liability; the money-damages portion of claim six was dismissed with prejudice; and claims seven and eight were dismissed with prejudice.