MASSI v. KEVIN BETHEL,et al, 2:12-cv-01309

Massi, a Caucasian police sergeant, sues the City of Philadelphia and several officers for constitutional and civil-rights claims in a Second Amended Complaint.
Only counts 1, 4, 6, and 10 are at issue after mass dismissals of other counts with prejudice; defendants moved to dismiss those four counts.
Count 1 seeks equal-protection discrimination under §1983; Count 4 is a Monell claim for municipal liability; Count 6 is a Title VII discrimination claim; Count 10 is a First Amendment retaliation claim.
Rule 12(b)(6) governs the dismissal analysis, requiring plausible factual pleadings showing entitlement to relief.
The court finds Count 1 survives only as to Allen for a single incident; Count 4 fails as pleaded but may be amended; Count 6 is time-barred and dismissed; Count 10 is dismissed without prejudice but may be amended in a Third Amended Complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Massi states a §1983 equal-protection claim against Allen.	Massi alleges disparate treatment by Allen toward him as a white officer.	Discrimination requires plausible evidence of differential treatment vs. similarly situated individuals.	Count 1 survives only against Allen for a single incident.
Whether Monell claims survive against the City based on failure to train/supervise.	Alleges City policy or deliberate indifference caused the harm.	No formal policy, policymaker, or ratification shown; failure-to-train claim inadequately pleaded.	Count 4 dismissed without prejudice; leave to amend to plead a narrow single-incident theory.
Whether Massi's Title VII claim is time-barred.	Discrimination claims relate to post-2008 events as alleged in SAC.	Claim time-barred.	Count 6 dismissed as time-barred.
Whether Massi's First Amendment retaliation claim meets Guarnieri public-concern requirements.	Grievances/filings relate to protected activity and Petition Clause rights.	Allegations lack clear public-concern context at pleading stage.	Count 10 dismissed without prejudice; leave to amend in a Third Amended Complaint.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must include plausible facts, not just conclusory assertions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires plausible grounds for relief)
Chambers v. School Dist. of Philadelphia Bd. of Educ., 587 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 2009) (equal-protection pleading needs similarly situated comparator facts)
City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (U.S. 1986) (Monell claims require policy, custom, or ratification to sustain liability)
Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350 (2011) (single-incident liability for failure to train is rare; need obvious connection to policy)
Bd. of County Comm’rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1997) (deliberate indifference standard for failure-to-train claims)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public-concern inquiry for Petition/First Amendment protections in employment context)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (speech/public-employee balancing for First Amendment claims)