## Facts

- Justin Adkins, a transgender man, was arrested during an Occupy Wall Street protest on the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1, 2011.
- He was transported to the NYPD’s 90th Precinct and initially held in a cell with other men without reported safety concerns.
- After officers allegedly learned Adkins is transgender, he was removed from the men’s cell and placed in isolation.
- Adkins alleged he was handcuffed to a wall for approximately seven hours and denied food during that time.
- Adkins sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting constitutional violations arising from his arrest and detention, including Equal Protection discrimination based on sex and gender identity.
- Defendants included the City of New York and multiple individual officials and officers.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated claims under § 1983 for excessive force, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, First Amendment violations, failure to intervene, and supervisory liability.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an Equal Protection violation based on differential treatment after officers learned the plaintiff was transgender.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a municipal policy or custom sufficient to support Monell liability against the City for an Equal Protection violation.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss as to all claims except the § 1983 Equal Protection claim against the City of New York.
- The court dismissed the claims against individual defendants and dismissed other constitutional theories (including excessive force, conditions of confinement, First Amendment, failure-to-intervene, and supervisory liability) for insufficient factual pleading.
- The court denied dismissal of the Equal Protection claim against the City, concluding the allegations plausibly supported intentional discrimination and a basis for municipal liability at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint must plead sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief; conclusory assertions do not satisfy Rule 12(b)(6).
- An Equal Protection claim requires plausible allegations of differential treatment of similarly situated persons and intentional discrimination.
- At the pleading stage, a plaintiff may support discriminatory intent through circumstantial allegations, including a temporal and factual link between protected status becoming known and adverse treatment.
- Municipal liability under § 1983 requires plausible allegations that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation; a municipality is not liable solely on a respondeat superior theory.
- Personal involvement is required for individual liability under § 1983; generalized allegations that supervisors “knew or should have known” are insufficient without supporting facts.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed most claims arising from the plaintiff’s arrest and detention but held that allegations he was isolated and subjected to harsher treatment after officers learned he was transgender plausibly stated a § 1983 Equal Protection claim against the City under Monell, allowing that claim to proceed.


Adkins v. City of New York, 143 F. Supp. 3d 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)