403 F.Supp.3d 680
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- Plaintiff Cristina Iglesias is a transgender woman (anatomically male) incarcerated at USP Marion, a male-only facility; she has gender dysphoria and has received hormone therapy since 2015.
- Iglesias alleges repeated denials or non-responses to requests for transfer to a female facility, sex-reassignment surgery, laser hair removal, and changes to official records to reflect female sex.
- She reports harassment, abuse, prior suicidal ideation/attempts, and one self-castration attempt.
- BOP revised its Transgender Offender Manual (May 11, 2018) directing the Transgender Executive Council to use biological sex as the initial facility-designation factor while considering other safety/medical factors.
- Court screened the pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and organized claims into six counts (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference; First Amendment records-change; Equal Protection class-of-one; failure-to-protect; ADA/RA failure-to-accommodate; Fifth/Fourteenth challenge to the Manual).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs (Count 1) | Iglesias alleges gender dysphoria is a serious medical need and defendants denied needed treatments and accommodations (transfer, surgery, hair removal). | Defendants (generally) lacked individual participation/knowledge; supervisory liability insufficient. | Proceeded against Ian Connors (National Inmate Appeals Administrator) based on his letters showing awareness; dismissed without prejudice as to other defendants. |
| First Amendment claim to change official records (Count 2) | Iglesias seeks correction of records to reflect female sex/gender. | Bivens damages action cannot be extended to First Amendment claims; alternative administrative remedies exist. | Dismissed with prejudice (court declines to extend Bivens). |
| Equal Protection "class-of-one" (Count 3) | Iglesias compares herself to another transfemale inmate (Peter Langdon) who was transferred; alleges disparate treatment. | Plaintiff failed to plead intentional differential treatment by any defendant. | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. |
| Failure to protect from abuse/sexual assault (Count 4) | Iglesias alleges harassment, abuse, and sexual assaults due to placement in male facility. | No allegations that defendants knew of a specific threat or were deliberately indifferent. | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege defendant knowledge/personal involvement. |
| Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate (Count 5) | Iglesias alleges gender dysphoria is a disability and BOP denied accommodations and treatments. | ADA does not apply to federal agencies; RA claim permissible only against agency/official capacity; contention over whether gender dysphoria falls within RA exclusion for gender-identity disorders. | RA claim allowed to proceed against Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (official capacity only); dismissed as to individual-capacity defendants. |
| Fifth/Fourteenth challenge to BOP Manual (Count 6) | Iglesias alleges the Manual revision (biological sex as initial placement determinant) is gender discrimination denying equal protection. | Allegation is conclusory; no personal involvement shown for Trump, Attorney General, or BOP Director. | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead personal involvement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (implied damages remedy against federal officers in limited contexts)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (limit on extending Bivens to new contexts)
- Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d 492 (7th Cir.) (deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of substantial risk)
- Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408 (7th Cir.) (recognizing gender dysphoria as serious medical condition)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (duty to protect prisoners from substantial risk of serious harm)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of Corrs., 685 F.3d 667 (RA claims not available against defendants in individual capacities)