Norsworthy v. Beard
87 F. Supp. 3d 1104
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Norsworthy, a transgender female CDCR prisoner, seeks injunctive relief for sex reassignment surgery as medically necessary to treat gender dysphoria.
- She has undergone feminizing hormone therapy since 2000 and seeks surgical treatment to alleviate severe distress and reduce health risks.
- CDCR denies sex reassignment surgery at multiple levels, claiming lack of medical necessity and relies on 15 C.C.R. § 3350.1; Beard has ultimate authority over policy and approvals.
- Norsworthy also seeks a legal name change; requests were denied at the warden level and on appeal, ultimately denied by Beard.
- Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 FAC alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs and equal protection, prompting defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery.
- Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss; name-change claim dismissed without leave to amend; Counts concerning medical care and equal protection survive for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy or custom requirement for injunctive relief | Norsworthy pleads CDCR policy/custom caused rights violations; Ex parte Young allows relief. | Policy/custom requirement applies; no identified moving force. | Policy or custom adequately alleged; claims survive. |
| Official-capacity claims viability against Adams, Coffin, Lozano, Zamora | Individuals personally involved; can provide relief and rights protection. | Officials lack authority to grant relief; claims should be dismissed. | Official-capacity claims viable at this stage; not dismissed. |
| Medical deliberate indifference for sex reassignment surgery | Defendants relied on non-specialists; denial was medically unacceptable under circumstances. | Disagreement in medical opinion; not deliberate indifference. | Adequate claim of deliberate indifference survives; discovery appropriate. |
| Equal protection claim | Transgender status is a suspect classification; disparate treatment in medical care and name-change process. | Regulations are facially neutral and do not discriminate; no protected-class membership shown. | Equal protection claim survives; transgender status treated with intermediate scrutiny. |
| Deliberate indifference re: name change | Denial of name change causes mental distress and is connected to medical treatment. | Name-change denials are not medical decisions; no serious medical need shown. | Name-change claim dismissed without leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (official-capacity and policy-or-custom analysis in § 1983)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1991) (official capacity suits require policy or custom link)
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (official-capacity claims and prospective relief limitations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference standard for medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (subjective prong of deliberate indifference)
- Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2012) (pretextual reports may show deliberate indifference)
- Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014) (reliance on treating vs non-treating providers; medical decisions)
- Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (reviewing medical appropriateness and discovery implications)
- Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1992) (policies to establish supervisor liability)
- Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) (gender discrimination under Equal Protection; transgender status as protected)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1989) (discrimination based on gender stereotyping)