15 Civ. 5871 (KPF) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Price v. City of N.Y. Decided Jun 25, 2018 15 Civ. 5871 (KPF) 06-25-2018 KELLY PRICE, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; ROSE PIERRE-LOUIS, in her individual and official capacity; SELVENA BROOKS, in her individual and official capacity; INSPECTOR OLUFUNMILO F. OBE, in her individual and official capacity; DETECTIVE LINDA SIMMONS, in her individual and official capacity; OFFICER JOHN STAINES, in his individual and official capacity; OFFICER ISELAINE GUICHARDO HERMENE GILDO CRUZ, in her individual and official capacity; LT. NICHOLAS CORRADO, in his individual and official capacity; LIEUTENANT RAYMOND DEJESUS, in his individual and official capacity; OFFICER EMMET, in his individual and official capacity; SERGEANT SHEVITZ, in his individual and official capacity; MTA OFFICER JOHN DOE, in his individual and official capacity; MTA OFFICER JANE DOE, in her individual and official capacity, Defendants. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge OPINION AND ORDER : Plaintiff Kelly Price brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her constitutional rights. This case has a long history, with which the Court presumes familiarity. But it suffices to say that Plaintiff has filed a Fourth Amended Complaint (the "FAC" (Dkt. #69)), and it is the operative pleading. She sues the City of New York, ten of its employees (primarily 2 officials of the New York City Police Department, or "NYPD"), and two *2 unidentified employees of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department. The City of New York and its employees (collectively referred to as the "City Defendants") have moved under Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss nearly all of the claims against them. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the City Defendants' motion to dismiss. BACKGROUND 1 1 For ease of reference, the Court refers to the City Defendants' supporting memorandum of law as "Def. Br." (Dkt. #108); Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition as "Pl. Opp." (Dkt. #110); and the City Defendants' reply memorandum as "Def. Reply" (Dkt. #111). The following allegations are taken from the FAC and are assumed to be true for the purposes of this Opinion. See Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011). From approximately September 2008 to December 2013, Plaintiff "was in a 'relationship' with [nonparty] Raheem Andre Powell," who abused her "physically, mentally, and economically." (FAC ¶¶ 19-20). For several years during their "relationship," Powell "forced [Plaintiff] to engage in sexual acts with third parties and to provide him monies accrued from performing such services, against [Plaintiff's] will." (Id. at ¶ 21). 1