Feaster v. City of New York, Police Officer John Doe
20-1122
| 2d Cir. | Oct 7, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Feaster sued the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was beaten by an off-duty NYPD officer (later identified as James Bortolotti); Bortolotti was never served, so the appeal concerns only the City.
- The City moved for judgment on the pleadings; Feaster sought leave to amend his complaint; the district court granted the City's motion and denied leave to amend as futile.
- Feaster's proposed amended complaint alleged an official City policy, custom, or practice of harassing, targeting, and using excessive force against LGBT persons and cited five historical incidents involving NYPD officers.
- He also asserted failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims, alleging the City was deliberately indifferent to constitutional violations against LGBT persons and that supervisors encouraged targeting.
- The district court found Feaster’s allegations conclusory and the cited incidents isolated; it held amendment would be futile and dismissed the municipal claims.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the denial of leave to amend de novo and affirmed, concluding the proposed amended complaint failed to plausibly plead Monell liability or deliberate indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed amended complaint plausibly alleges municipal liability under Monell (policy/custom) | Feaster argued the City has policies/customs targeting LGBT persons, supported by five historical incidents and allegations about supervisors | City argued allegations were conclusory and isolated incidents cannot establish a municipal policy or custom | Court: Dismissal affirmed; allegations are conclusory and isolated incidents insufficient to plead Monell liability |
| Whether historical incidents and general allegations can create a plausible inference of a discriminatory municipal policy | Feaster relied on five incidents over ~50 years to show a pattern | City argued incidents are temporally and factually disparate and do not show a persistent practice | Court: Rejects inference; disparate, isolated examples do not show a persistent, widespread practice |
| Whether failure-to-train / failure-to-supervise claims adequately allege deliberate indifference | Feaster claimed the City’s training/supervision was deficient and reflected deliberate indifference toward LGBT-targeting | City argued Feaster offered only conclusory assertions without factual support for deliberate indifference | Court: Claims fail; allegations are conclusory and do not allege facts showing deliberate indifference |
| Whether the case should be remanded for consideration of supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Feaster sought remand to address state-law claims | City opposed remand after federal claims dismissed | Court: Declines to remand; affirms dismissal of federal claims and declines remand for state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires action pursuant to official municipal policy)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (official municipal policy includes widespread practices having force of law)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual content to state a plausible claim)
- Jones v. Town of E. Haven, 691 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2012) (isolated acts by non-policymakers typically insufficient to show municipal custom)
- Hu v. City of N.Y., 927 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (reiterating Monell requirements for municipal liability)
- City of Pontiac Policemen’s & Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG, 752 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for futility and pleading sufficiency)
- Walker v. City of N.Y., 974 F.2d 293 (2d Cir. 1992) (municipal liability for failure to train/supervise requires deliberate indifference)