Michelle-Lael Norsworthy v. Jeffrey Beard
802 F.3d 1090
9th Cir.2015Background
- Norsworthy, a transgender woman, has been incarcerated in the California prison system since 1987.
- Diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2000, she petitioned CDCR for sex reassignment surgery to change her sex characteristics from male to female.
- CDCR denied the petition, and Norsworthy sued, alleging Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring CDCR to perform sex reassignment surgery, which CDCR appealed and the panel stayed the injunction pending appeal.
- One day before oral argument, Norsworthy was released on parole; the parties dispute whether the case became moot, with the court later remanding to determine if mootness was happenstance or the defendants’ actions under Ringsby.
- The appeal was dismissed as moot and remanded to decide whether to vacate the injunction and whether to award attorneys’ fees; a concurrence urged vacatur instead of remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot due to Norsworthy’s parole release? | Norsworthy contends mootness is due to her release. | CDCR argues mootness applies unless class action or continuining relief, pending appeal. | Yes, the appeal is moot and must be dismissed. |
| Should the district court vacate the injunction or remand for vacatur determination? | Vacatur appropriate given mootness and need to finalize fees. | Remand needed to determine if mootness resulted from defendants’ actions. | Remand for the district court to determine mootness cause and potential vacatur; otherwise, vacatur is possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365 (9th Cir. 1995) (mootness and the exception for when appellant caused dismissal; remand to consider vacatur)
- Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters, 686 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1982) (established criteria for vacating injunction when mootness is caused by appellant)