“To prevail on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must show that a municipal policy or custom caused the deprivation of his constitutional rights.” Plair v. City of New York, 789 F.Supp.2d 459, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Monell v. Dep't Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 693 (1978). “A plaintiff can establish an official policy or custom by showing any of the following: (1) a formal policy officially endorsed by the municipality; (2) actions or decisions made by municipal officials with decision-making authority; (3) a practice so persistent and widespread that it constitutes a custom of which policymakers must have been aware; or (4) a failure by policymakers to properly train or supervise their subordinates, such that the policymakers exercised ‘deliberate indifference' to the rights of the plaintiff and others encountering those subordinates
Thus, "in order to establish municipal liability, plaintiff must establish that an identified municipal policy was the 'moving force [behind] the constitutional violation.'" Plair v. City of New York, 789 F. Supp. 2d 459, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694) (emphasis added)). i. Cohoes Police Department
Thus, "in order to establish municipal liability, plaintiff must establish that an identified municipal policy was the 'moving force [behind] the constitutional violation.'" Plair v. City of New York, 789 F. Supp. 2d 459, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694) (emphasis added)). i. Cohoes Police Department
For a Monell claim to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege "sufficient factual detail" and not mere "boilerplate allegations" that the violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights resulted from the municipality's custom or official policy. Plair v. City of New York, 789 F. Supp. 2d 459, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (collecting cases). A plaintiff must show the existence of an officially adopted policy or custom that caused injury and a direct causal connection between that policy or custom and the deprivation of a constitutional right.
“For a Monell claim to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege ‘sufficient factual detail[ ]' and not mere ‘boilerplate allegations' that the violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights resulted from the municipality's custom or official policy.” Broomes v. City of New York, No. 22-CV-2807 (PKC) (MMH), 2024 WL 3823031, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2024) (quoting Plair v. City of New York, 789 F.Supp.2d 459, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (collecting cases)).
For a Monell claim to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege “sufficient factual detail[]” and not mere “boilerplate allegations” that the violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights resulted from the municipality's custom or official policy. Plair v. City of New York, 789 F.Supp.2d 459, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (collecting cases).
Boilerplate assertions of a municipal policy or custom are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See Plair v. City of New York, 789 F.Supp.2d 459, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (collecting cases).
“To prevail on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must show that a municipal policy or custom caused the deprivation of his constitutional rights.” Plair v. City of New York, 789 F.Supp.2d 459, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
“To prevail on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must show that a municipal policy or custom caused the deprivation of his constitutional rights.” Plair v. City of New York, 789 F.Supp.2d 459, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “A municipality may not be held liable under § 1983 on the basis of respondeat superior.
Even accepting the truth of Plaintiff's allegations, this incident, though distasteful, does not show a persistent or widespread custom of gender discrimination in the EHFD, given that nearly thirty years passed between the incident and Plaintiff's application for the Assistant Chief position. See Lupinacci v. Pizighelli, 588 F.Supp.2d 242, 252 (D. Conn. 2008) (holding that certain events were “so remote in time from the events at issue here that no reasonable jury could conclude that they reflected the municipality's policy at the time of” the relevant events); Plair v. City of New York, 789 F.Supp.2d 459, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding two instances of misconduct occurring “several years” before the relevant events insufficient to plausibly allege a municipal policy or custom, given “the passage of time and the installation of a new” agency head); Neira v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 13-CV-7271 (JMA) (AYS), 2022 WL 4586045, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022) (finding certain events occurring years before the relevant incident “too attenuated to establish Monell liability”). At oral argument, Plaintiff argued that those events evince the discriminatory animus that has infected her entire tenure of employment with the EHFD; but the complaint does not allege anything between the early 1990s and the time period when she applied for the Assistant Chief position, and thus there are no allegations that suggest a continuous pattern of gender discrimination throughout all those years.