MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge.

Kayla Dionne Lewis and Felton Hill, the named plaintiffs in this case, bring this putative class action against the defendant, the District of Columbia (the "District"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018), alleging constitutional violations arising from their arrests and subsequent detentions. See generally Third Amended Complaint [a]nd Jury Demand ("Third Amended Complaint" or "3d Am. Compl."). Currently pending before the Court is Defendant District of Columbia's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint ("Def.'s Mot."). Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions,1 the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant in part and deny in part the District's motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court discussed the factual background of this case in its Memorandum Opinion issued on June 27, 2016, see Lewis v. District of Columbia ("Lewis I"), 195 F.Supp.3d 53, 56-57 (D.D.C. 2016) (Walton, J.), and it will not reiterate those facts again here. The Court will, however, discuss the procedural posture of this case, which is relevant to the resolution of the pending motion.

In Lewis I, the Court granted in part and denied in part the District's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. See id. at 56. The Court granted the District's motion to dismiss Hill's claims pertaining to the length of his detention because he had not "asserted a constitutional deprivation." Id. at 60. The Court concluded that "[t]he only reason proffered by Hill for the Court to find an unreasonable delay[—]that the judicial officer affirmatively concluded at his initial appearance that the government lacked probable cause to effect the arrest[—] ... [was] belied by the transcript of that proceeding," id. at 59 (emphasis omitted), and that "Hill fail[ed] to offer any other reason for this Court to find an unreasonable delay in his release," id. at 60. Regarding Lewis's claims pertaining to the length of her detention, the Court denied the District's motion to dismiss and concluded that, because "the District concede[d] that it held her for more than forty-eight hours without a judicial finding of probable cause, and ultimately acknowledge[d] that it was ordered to release Lewis after failing to submit evidence substantiating probable cause, ... these concessions alone are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss[.]" Id. (citations omitted).2 The Court also denied the District's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim "that the [District] violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights by subjecting them to blanket strip[]searches at the [District of Columbia] Jail after presentment." Id. at 63 (second and third alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The current operative complaint in this case—the Third Amended Complaint, which was filed on March 12, 2018, see 3d Am. Compl. at 1—asserts three claims that challenge the District's policies regarding probable cause determinations and detainee strip searches. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the District (1) "violated their Fourth Amendment rights ... under Gerstein v. Pugh[, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975),] by holding them after presentment after the administrative steps incident to their arrests had been completed without an affirmative finding of probable cause" ("Count One"), 3d Am. Compl. ¶ 103; (2) "violated the Fourth Amendment rights ... of Lewis... [under County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991)] by holding [her for] more than [forty-eight] hours after [her] arrest without a finding of probable cause by a judicial officer" ("Count Two"), id. ¶ 107; and (3) "violated the Fourth [and Fifth] Amendment rights of the [plaintiffs]... by subjecting them to blanket strip[]searches at the [District of Columbia] Jail after presentment (after the administrative steps incident to their arrests had been completed) without an affirmative finding of probable cause" ("Count Three"), id. ¶ 112. On March 26, 2018, the District filed its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, see Def.'s Mot. at 1, which is the subject of this Memorandum Opinion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether a complaint "state[s] a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss [under Rule 12(b)(6)], 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw [a] reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

In evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "the Court must construe the complaint `in favor of the plaintiff, who must be granted the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.'" Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). While the Court must "assume the[] veracity" of any "well-pleaded factual allegations" in a complaint, conclusory allegations "are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Thus, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Also, the Court need not accept "legal conclusions cast as factual allegations," or "inferences drawn by [the] plaintiff if those inferences are not supported by the facts set out in the complaint." Hettinga, 677 F.3d at 476. The Court "may consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint[,] and matters of which [the Court] may take judicial notice." EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Claims Pertaining to the Length of the Plaintiffs' Detentions (Counts One and Two)

The District argues that (1) Counts One and Two "should be dismissed because they are premised on official acts by [judges for the] Superior Court [for the District of Columbia (`Superior Court')] [] who are not policymakers for the District," and "as such, [the] plaintiffs cannot establish municipal liability under Section 1983," Def.'s Mem. at 12; (2) Count One "should be dismissed as to Hill because his detention of less than [forty-eight] hours does not give rise to a Fourth Amendment violation," id. at 8; and (3) Count One "should be dismissed as to Lewis because it is duplicative of her allegations in [Count Two]—namely, that she was unreasonably held for over [forty-eight] hours without a finding of probable cause by a judicial officer to allow the `perfection' of the Gerstein affidavit,"3 id. The Court will address each of the District's arguments in turn.

While "a policeman's on-the-scene assessment of probable cause provides legal justification for arresting a person suspected of crime," Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 113-14, 95 S.Ct. 854, "the Fourth Amendment requires a timely judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to detention," id. at 126, 95 S.Ct. 854. "[A] jurisdiction that provides judicial determinations of probable cause within [forty-eight] hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement of Gerstein." Riverside, 500 U.S. at 56, 111 S.Ct. 1661. "Such jurisdictions will be immune from systemic challenges." Id. However, a "probable cause determination in a particular case [does not] pass[] constitutional muster simply because it is provided within [forty-eight] hours." Id. "Such a hearing may nonetheless violate Gerstein if the arrested individual can prove that his or her probable cause determination was delayed unreasonably," such as "delays for the purpose of gathering additional evidence to justify the arrest, a delay motivated by ill will against the arrested individual, or delay for delay's sake." Id. If an arrested individual is detained for more than forty-eight hours without a judicial determination of probable cause, "the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance." Id. at 57, 111 S.Ct. 1661.

As an initial matter, the Court disagrees with the District's first argument that Count One and Two must be dismissed because the plaintiffs "fail[ed] to allege a specific District custom, policy[,] or a practice that runs afoul of the Constitution" in order to state a municipal liability claim under Section 1983.4 Id. at 13. The Court notes that the District previously advanced this same argument in its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, see Defendant District of Columbia's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint at 21 ("The Amended Complaint falls far short of stating a municipal liability claim under Section 1983.... [The] [p]laintiffs fail to allege a specific District custom, policy or a practice that runs afoul of the Constitution."), and the Court rejected it in Lewis I, concluding that "the Magistrate Judge presiding over Lewis's initial hearing indicated to the contrary," see Lewis I, 195 F. Supp. 3d at 62. Specifically, the Court stated:

Id. (second through tenth alterations in original) (citations omitted). Therefore, because the Third Amended Complaint largely mirrors the Amended Complaint on this matter, compare Amended Complaint for Judgment and Money Damages and Injunctive Relief and Equitable Relief and Declaratory Relief and Jury Demand, with 3d Am. Compl., and because the District has not presented any new arguments to warrant a different ruling,5 see Def.'s Mem. 12-16, the Court, for the same reasons indicated in Lewis I, 195 F. Supp. 3d at 62, must deny the District's motion to dismiss on the basis of its argument that the Third Amended Complaint does not establish a basis for finding municipal liability under Section 1983.

The Court agrees with the District's second argument that "[t]he Third Amended Complaint [] does not present a basis to resurrect [Count One of the Third Amended Complaint as to Hill, which] th[e] Court previously dismissed." Def.'s Mem. at 8. As the Court concluded previously in Lewis I, Hill's claims regarding the length of his detention in the Amended Complaint "d[id] not pass muster," 195 F. Supp. 3d at 59, because he "fail[ed] to offer a[] [sufficient] reason for this Court to find an unreasonable delay in his release," id. at 60. Count One of the Third Amended Complaint fares no better. The only reason that Hill now offers for the Court to find that his probable cause determination was delayed unreasonably is that the Magistrate Judge presiding over his initial appearance, "without making an affirmative finding of probable cause, ... ordered [that] Hill [be] held until the next day ... to give the District an opportunity to perfect the Gerstein [affidavit]." 3d Am. Compl. ¶ 95 (internal quotation marks omitted).6 However, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that "the Fourth Amendment does not compel an immediate determination of probable cause upon completing the administrative steps incident to arrest," Riverside, 500 U.S. at 53-54, 111 S.Ct. 1661, as "some delays are inevitable[,] [f]or example," in jurisdictions "where[] ... the probable cause determination is combined with arraignment, there will be delays caused by paperwork and logistical problems," id. at 55, 111 S.Ct. 1661, and in such situations, "the Fourth Amendment permits a reasonable postponement of a probable cause determination while the police cope with the everyday problems of processing suspects through an overly burdened criminal justice system," id. And, although states are accorded "flexibility" by Gerstein in regards to integrating probable cause determinations into their pretrial procedures, this accommodation "has its limits[] [and] is not a blank check." Id. at 55, 111 S.Ct. 1661. However, Hill's proffered reason for the Court to find an unreasonable delay is insufficient to resurrect his claim regarding the length of his detention. Therefore, the Court concludes that Hill has not sufficiently alleged that the Magistrate Judge's deferral of his probable cause determination resulted in an unreasonable delay and thus must again grant the District's motion to dismiss Hill's claim challenging the length of his detention.

The Court also agrees with the District's third argument that Lewis cannot maintain both Counts One and Two against the District. See Def.'s Mot. at 11-12. In Count Two, Lewis alleges that the District violated a right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment "by holding [her for] more than [forty-eight] hours after [her] arrest without a finding of probable cause by a judicial officer." 3d Am. Compl. ¶ 107. But, in Count One, Lewis already alleges that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the District when she was detained "after presentment after the administrative steps incident to [her] arrest[] had been completed without an affirmative finding of probable cause." Id. ¶ 103. These allegations, although couched in different terms and pleaded in separate counts of the Third Amended Complaint, are premised on the very same set of factual allegations, involve the same legal standard, and if successful, would result in identical relief. In fact, both counts, at their core, pertain to the same alleged violation of Lewis's Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure. And, despite Lewis's characterization of Count Two as a claim that purports to be brought under Riverside distinct from Count One, which is purportedly brought under Gerstein, compare 3d Am. Compl. at 22 ("[Section] 1983 Liability of District of Columbia under the Fourth Amendment for Illegal Holds under Riverside."), with id. at 21 ("[Section] 1983 Liability of District of Columbia under the Fourth Amendment under Gerstein[.]"), the Supreme Court in Gerstein and Riverside did not create distinct causes of action that allows Lewis to maintain Count One and Count Two as distinct causes of action.7 In fact, because Count One is indistinguishable from Count Two, Lewis is doing nothing more than pursuing the same claim in separate counts.

According to Lewis, she can maintain the two counts separately

Pls.' Opp'n at 24.8 However, this argument is premised upon a flawed interpretation of the Supreme Court's decisions in not only Gerstein, but also Riverside. Lewis claims that the Supreme Court in Gerstein "did not address the related issue of the time within which the government must provide probable cause determinations to detained arrestees arrested [without] warrant[s] when the probable cause determination is combine with other pretrial proceedings, such as arraignment or bail hearings." Id. at 20-21. And, she maintains that the Supreme Court in Riverside "addressed the specific fact pattern of how much time a jurisdiction has to provide probable cause determinations to detained arrestees where a jurisdiction combines the probable cause determination with other pretrial proceedings, such as arraignment or bail hearings" and concluded that the presumption of reasonableness applies to judicial determinations of probable cause provided within the forty-eight-hour time period only "when the probable cause determination is combined with other pretrial proceedings," id. at 22. This is incorrect. The Supreme Court in Gerstein, after stating that "[t]here is no single preferred pretrial procedure," recognized "the desirability of flexibility and experimentation by the [s]tates," and specifically concluded that

420 U.S. at 123-25, 95 S.Ct. 854 (emphasis added) (citations and footnotes omitted). And, the Supreme Court in Riverside did not limit its conclusion that "a jurisdiction that provides judicial determinations of probable cause within [forty-eight] hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement of Gerstein," Riverside, 500 U.S. at 56, 111 S.Ct. 1661, to instances where a jurisdiction combines a probable cause determination with other pretrial proceedings, as Lewis suggests, see Pls.' Opp'n at 22. Therefore, contrary to Lewis's arguments, Gerstein and Riverside do not give rise to separate violations of the Fourth Amendment. And, because Lewis "has not [sufficiently] articulated any reason to maintain [Count Two]... as a separate cause of action" from Count One, Rodriguez v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 13 F.Supp.3d 121, 128 (D.D.C. 2014), the Court finds Counts One and Two as duplicative of one another. However, instead of dismissing Count One as the District suggests, see Def.'s Mot. at 12, the Court will dismiss Count Two since Count Two "does not present any legal or factual theories that are not already subsumed" in Count One, id. (quoting WMI Liquidating Tr. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 110 F.Supp.3d 44 (D.D.C. 2015) (Walton, J.)).

B. The Plaintiffs' Strip-Search Claim (Count Three)

The District also argues that the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim regarding the District's alleged blanket strip searches should be dismissed because "[t]here is no legal basis to support a Fifth Amendment challenge to the strip searches of [the] plaintiffs." Def.'s Mem. at 16. The Court agrees with the District.

"Where a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing the claims." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)).

Here, "[t]he Fourth Amendment, in prohibiting unreasonable searches, is clearly the explicit textual source of constitutional protection against the governmental conduct alleged in this case." Barnes v. District of Columbia, 793 F.Supp.2d 260, 291 (D.D.C. 2011); see Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (stating that the Fourth "Amendment covers only `searches and seizures'"). Therefore, because the plaintiffs' strip search claim is "covered by" the Fourth Amendment's guarantee to be free from an unreasonable search, Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 843, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (quoting United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 272 n.7, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997)), "[the] [p]laintiffs' challenge to the reasonableness of the [] strip searches ... is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, not the Fifth," Barnes, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 291. Accordingly, the Court grants the District's motion to dismiss Count Three of the Third Amended Complaint to the extent that the plaintiffs rely on the Fifth Amendment to maintain their strip search claim.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Hill has failed to allege sufficient facts in support of his claim regarding the length of his detention. The Court further concludes that Count Two is duplicative of Count One and that Count Two is therefore dismissed. The Court also concludes that the plaintiffs cannot maintain their claim regarding the District's alleged blanket strip searches under the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the District's motion to dismiss.9

SO ORDERED this 8th day of October, 2019.10