Stansel Prowse v. Dexter Payne, 984 F.3d 700

Background

Plaintiff Stansel Alexander Prowse, an Arkansas Department of Corrections inmate diagnosed with gender dysphoria, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging ADC denied her hormone therapy; defendants were ADC officials (Kelley, Griffin, Parker).
The district court dismissed Prowse’s amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim; she appealed.
During oral argument the parties disclosed Prowse had been receiving hormone therapy for several months; the court ordered supplemental briefing on mootness.
Defendant Robert Parker submitted an affidavit that the Gender Dysphoria Management and Treatment Committee approved hormone therapy on May 21, 2020, Prowse has received it continuously since, and will continue to receive it so long as it is clinically indicated; Prowse does not dispute ongoing treatment.
The court found the injunctive claim for hormone therapy moot because the requested relief has already been provided and the government’s affidavit makes recurrence unlikely; it vacated the district court judgment on that claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot.
The court declined to consider new claims raised on appeal (medical monitoring, side‑effects, solitary confinement) because they were not pleaded; it also declined to consider clothing/hygiene requests not meaningfully briefed and affirmed dismissal of remaining unpleaded claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of injunctive relief (hormone therapy)	Prowse seeks injunctive relief because ADC denied hormone therapy.	Prowse is already receiving hormone therapy continuously and will continue while clinically indicated.	Claim for injunctive relief is moot; vacate district court judgment and remand to dismiss as moot.
Effect of voluntary cessation and adequacy of affidavit	Stresses risk ADC could stop therapy later; voluntary cessation shouldn’t moot case.	Government affidavit shows treatment approved and ongoing; governmental defendants less likely to resume unlawful conduct.	affidavit sufficient here; illegal conduct not reasonably expected to recur—moot.
New allegations raised on appeal (monitoring, side effects, solitary confinement)	These alleged harms show continuing injury and defeat mootness.	These claims were not in the complaint and thus are not properly before the court.	New allegations not considered on appeal; they do not overcome mootness and could be litigated separately.
Nominal damages & other relief (clothing/hygiene; equal protection harassment)	Requests nominal damages and women’s clothing/personal items; alleges harassment equal protection claim.	Officials sued only in official capacity; Eleventh Amendment bars damages. Clothing/hygiene not briefed; harassment claim not pleaded.	Nominal damages do not salvage the moot injunctive claim; clothing/hygiene issue not considered; equal protection/harassment claims were not properly pleaded and dismissal affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (explaining mootness when issues are no longer live)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (mootness requires it be "absolutely clear" wrongful behavior will not recur)
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (voluntary cessation does not automatically moot a case)
Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 903 F.3d 786 (8th Cir.) (mootness where changed circumstances provide requested relief)
Ctr. for Special Needs Tr. Admin., Inc. v. Olson, 676 F.3d 688 (8th Cir.) (defendant bears heavy burden to prove mootness via voluntary cessation)
Keohane v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr. Sec’y, 952 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir.) (governmental defendants receive more deference on voluntary cessation mootness)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages against officials sued only in their official capacities)
Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir.) (briefs on appeal cannot amend the complaint)