## Facts

- Patti Hammond Shaw, a transgender woman who had undergone sex reassignment surgery, alleged she was legally recognized as female during all relevant events.
- Shaw alleged three separate arrests and detentions in the District of Columbia involving the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).
- Shaw claimed officers repeatedly treated her as male despite her legal sex and name.
- She alleged humiliating searches that exposed her breasts and genital area, involved inappropriate touching, and included degrading verbal harassment.
- She alleged she was placed with, or threatened with placement with, male detainees and experienced sexual harassment and threats, creating a serious risk of sexual assault.
- Shaw asserted MPD policies required special handling for transgender detainees (including individual-cell placement and notification to USMS), but officers failed to follow those policies.
- Shaw sued the District of Columbia, MPD officials (including Chief Cathy Lanier in an official capacity and Lt. Merrender Quicksey in an individual capacity), the United States, and individual USMS deputies (including Benjamin Kates, Steve Conboy, and Troy Musgrove), asserting constitutional and related statutory and tort claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged Fourth Amendment violations based on intrusive, cross-gender searches and sexually humiliating conduct.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged Fifth Amendment due process violations for unconstitutional conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a pretrial detainee.
3. Whether the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage because the asserted rights were not clearly established.
4. Whether the claims against Chief Lanier in her official capacity should be dismissed for procedural and pleading deficiencies and for failure to state a distinct claim.

## Decision

- The court granted the USMS defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Deputy Steve Conboy due to insufficient allegations of his personal involvement.
- The court denied the USMS defendants’ motion as to Deputies Benjamin Kates and Troy Musgrove, allowing Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims to proceed.
- The court denied Lt. Quicksey’s motion to dismiss, permitting claims against her to proceed.
- The court granted Chief Lanier’s motion to dismiss, largely on procedural and pleading grounds related to service and the redundancy/insufficiency of the official-capacity allegations.

## Legal Principles

- A pretrial detainee’s conditions-of-confinement claims arise under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and require allegations of (1) an objectively substantial risk of serious harm and (2) deliberate indifference—knowledge of and disregard for that risk.
- Intrusive strip or body searches, particularly cross-gender searches involving intimate physical contact and degrading verbal conduct without adequate justification, can constitute unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment.
- Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal where the complaint plausibly alleges conduct that violates clearly established constitutional protections, as understood by reasonable officers at the time.
- Individual liability in constitutional tort claims requires plausible allegations of the defendant’s personal involvement; conclusory or unlinked allegations warrant dismissal as to that defendant.
- Official-capacity claims and claims against supervisory officials may be dismissed when procedurally defective (including service problems) or when they fail to plead a non-redundant basis for relief distinct from the municipal defendant.

## Conclusion

The court permitted Shaw’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims to proceed against certain individual officers based on alleged intrusive cross-gender searches and deliberate indifference to the risk created by housing a legally female detainee with male detainees, while dismissing claims against one USMS deputy for insufficient personal involvement and dismissing the police chief on procedural and pleading grounds.


Shaw v. District of Columbia, 944 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2013)