D.S. v. City of Peekskill, 581 F. App'x 65

Plaintiff D.S. sued Peekskill and Westchester County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging defendants disclosed his criminal records that had been sealed under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 160.50.
The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
D.S. contended § 160.50 creates a liberty interest in confidentiality and that its breach deprived him of procedural due process.
Defendants argued § 160.50 does not create a federal liberty interest and alternatively argued D.S. failed to plead intentional conduct and municipal liability.
The Second Circuit affirmed, reasoning the complaint failed to plausibly allege that the disclosure was intentional rather than negligent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sealed-records disclosure violated due process	Section 160.50 creates a liberty interest; disclosure deprived D.S. of due process	§ 160.50 does not create a liberty interest; even if it did, disclosure was not constitutionally intentional	Court declined to decide the liberty-interest question; affirmed dismissal because complaint failed to plausibly allege intentional deprivation
Whether defendants acted with requisite intent for a due-process § 1983 claim	Alleged officials authorized/approved disclosure and acted with knowing, callous indifference	Disclosure, as alleged, at most shows negligence; no plausible allegations officials knew files were sealed or intended disclosure	Plaintiff’s allegations were conclusory or consistent with negligence; intent not plausibly pleaded
Whether conclusory allegations suffice post-Iqbal/Twombly	D.S. relied on allegations of authorization, acquiescence, and boilerplate intent language	Such conclusory assertions are insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6)	Conclusory allegations were not entitled to assume truth and failed to nudge claims from conceivable to plausible
Whether municipal liability was adequately alleged	Complaint alleged final policymakers had knowledge and authorized the conduct	Defendants argued no factual showing of policymaker intent or custom causing deprivation	Court did not resolve municipal-liability question, affirming on the separate ground of lack of intentionality

Lotes Co., Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co., 753 F.3d 395 (2d Cir.) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations are not entitled to presumption of truth)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (negligent acts by officials do not implicate due process)
Shannon v. Jacobowitz, 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir.) (intentional conduct prerequisite for due process claim)
Hudson v. New York City, 271 F.3d 62 (2d Cir.) (§ 1983's intent requirements depend on the underlying constitutional right alleged)
Gold v. Feinberg, 101 F.3d 796 (2d Cir.) (more than negligent conduct required for due-process § 1983 claims)
Cromwell Assocs. v. Oliver Cromwell Owners, Inc., 941 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.) (appellate court may affirm on any adequately supported ground)