HINTON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 567 F.Supp.3d 30

Plaintiff Sunday Hinton, a transgender woman, was detained in D.C. Jail (Apr 26–May 26, 2021) and initially housed in a men’s unit under DOC’s “G Policy,” which treated anatomy as a presumptive basis for housing.
Hinton sued seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief under the Equal Protection Clause and the D.C. Human Rights Act; she sought a TRO, preliminary injunction, and class certification.
DOC replaced the G Policy with the June 17, 2021 “H Policy,” which directs housing based on the inmate’s gender preference but places transgender inmates into mandatory protective custody during intake pending PREA/THC assessments.
Hinton contends the H Policy remains discriminatory (e.g., mandatory protective custody, shackling, inadequate safeguards and notice) and that effects of the G Policy persist; DOC contends the H Policy moots the challenge and that Hinton’s release moots individual relief.
The court held the G Policy claims moot, declined to find the enactment of the H Policy entirely moot the case, denied class certification (Rule 23 numerosity) without prejudice, denied Hinton’s individual preliminary injunction for lack of irreparable harm, and allowed pre-certification discovery and a renewed class-certification motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness after policy change (G → H)	Voluntary-cessation exception; H Policy still discriminatory and lacks safeguards	H Policy removes anatomy presumption and provides requested relief	Claims against the superseded G Policy are moot; claims against the H Policy remain live for now
Mootness based on Hinton’s release	Inherently-transitory exception allows relation-back for class certification so class claims survive	Hinton’s release moots her individual injunctive claims	Individual injunction claims are moot; class viability depends on certification (court addresses class first)
Class certification (Rule 23 numerosity)	Class of current/future transgender inmates subject to intake protective custody is numerous and joinder impracticable	DOC data shows few transgender detainees; plaintiff’s evidence insufficient	Numerosity not shown; class certification denied without prejudice; plaintiff may seek pre-certification discovery and renew
Preliminary injunction (individual)	Hinton faces shackling and harm on re-incarceration; injunction needed	Hinton was released; harm speculative; no certain irreparable injury	PI denied for plaintiff individually for failure to show certain and irreparable harm

United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (voluntary cessation generally does not moot a case)
County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (case is moot when issues are no longer live)
Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (class certification can create a continuing legal status allowing relation back)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction requires clear showing including irreparable harm)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis and plaintiff’s burden at certification)
J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (inherently transitory exception and relation-back to preserve class actions)
Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 685 F.3d 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (challenge to superseded law is moot absent evidence it will be reenacted)
National Black Police Ass'n v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (voluntary cessation and standard for expectation of recurrence)
Zukerman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 961 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (defendant bears burden to show no reasonable expectation of recurrence)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (release/transfer can moot equitable claims absent likelihood of recurrence)