Price v. City of N.Y. 15 Civ. 5871 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 25, 2018) 1. Malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth Amendment against Simmons, in her individual and official capacities, and the City of New York; When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court should "draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff['s] favor, assume all well-pleaded factual allegations to be true, and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). While this plausibility requirement "is not akin to a probability requirement . . . , it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2. First Amendment claims against Obe, Brooks, and Pierre-Louis, in their individual and official capacities, and the City of New York; 3. False arrest claims under the Fourth Amendment, against Corrado, Cruz, and Staines, in their individual and official capacities, and the City of New York; 4. False arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth Amendment, against MTA Officer John Doe and MTA Officer Jane Doe, in their individual and official capacities, and the City of New York; and 5. Substantive due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, against all of the individual defendants, related to the assault and denial of services on January 24, 2017. 12 (FAC ¶¶ 186-90). Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated her constitutional rights, a permanent injunction restraining Defendants from placing or keeping her on a do-not-serve list or deeming her a fabricator, and compensatory and punitive damages. *12 The City Defendants have moved, under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss all claims against them, except for the false arrest claims against Corrado, Cruz, and Staines. The MTA and its officers are not parties to this motion. A. Applicable Law 1. Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13 Toward that end, a plaintiff must provide more than "an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege "naked assertions or conclusory statements"; rather, a plaintiff must come forward with "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the *13 misconduct alleged." Biro v. Conde Nast, 807 F.3d 541, 544 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the "strongest [claims] that they suggest,"5 Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original); see generally McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 157 (2d Cir. 2017). 5 The Court notes that Plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to this motion "was prepared with the assistance of the New York Legal Assistance Group Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the SDNY." (See Pl. Opp. 2 n.1). Accordingly, 6