Mr. Powers’s suicide and makes the assertion that the District’s “failure to provide proper training and supervision showed ... deliberate indifference to the safety of civilians with whom its officers detain [sic], bring into custody[,] and to whom they owe a heightened duty with regard to their personal safety.” Compl. ¶ 49. Thus, drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, Plaintiff alleges that the District’s failure to train its police officers in the proper detection and treatment of potentially suicidal detainees amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of detainees like Mr. Powers. Under D.C. Circuit precedent, these allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 423 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the Fifth
holding that disagreement with a doctors judgment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference holding that a failure to adequately train will only result in  1983 liability where that failure amounts to a deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact holding that a complaint alleging a single incident of police officer misconduct together with an assertion that the districts failure to train its officers showed deliberate indifference was sufficient to state a claim under monell holding no deliberate indifference when a failure to take reasonable measures was due to defendants mistake holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs