M. C. v. Dr. James Amrhein

Filing

UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-01303-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999516899]. [13-2178, 13-2182, 13-2183]

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 16

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2178

M. C., a minor by and through his parents Pamela Crawford
and John Mark Crawford,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DR. JAMES AMRHEIN,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
DR. IAN AARONSON; DR. YAW APPIAGYEI-DANKAH; KIM AYDLETTE;
MEREDITH WILLIAMS; CANDICE DAVIS, a/k/a Candi Davis; MARY
SEARCY; DOE 1, Unknown South Carolina Department of Social
Services Employee; DOE 2, Unknown South Carolina Department
of Social Services Employee; DOE 3, Unknown South Carolina
Department of Social Services Employee,
Defendants.
-----------------------------AIS-DSD SUPPORT GROUP; THE PROGRAM FOR THE STUDY OF
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE-INFORMATION SOCIETY PROJECT AT THE
YALE LAW SCHOOL AND CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS,
Amici Supporting Appellee.

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 16

No. 13-2182

M. C., a minor by and through his parents Pamela Crawford
and John Mark Crawford,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KIM AYDLETTE; MEREDITH WILLIAMS; CANDICE DAVIS, a/k/a Candi
Davis; MARY SEARCY,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
DR. JAMES AMRHEIN; DR. IAN AARONSON; DR. YAW APPIAGYEIDANKAH; DOE 1, Unknown South Carolina Department of Social
Services Employee; DOE 2, Unknown South Carolina Department
of Social Services Employee; DOE 3, Unknown South Carolina
Department of Social Services Employee,
Defendants.
-----------------------------AIS-DSD SUPPORT GROUP; THE PROGRAM FOR THE STUDY OF
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE-INFORMATION SOCIETY PROJECT AT THE
YALE LAW SCHOOL AND CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS,
Amici Supporting Appellee.

No. 13-2183

M. C., a minor by and through his parents Pamela Crawford
and John Mark Crawford,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.

2

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 3 of 16

DR. IAN AARONSON; DR. YAW APPIAGYEI-DANKAH,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
DR. JAMES AMRHEIN; KIM AYDLETTE; MEREDITH WILLIAMS; CANDICE
DAVIS, a/k/a Candi Davis; MARY SEARCY; DOE 1, Unknown South
Carolina Department of Social Services Employee; DOE 2,
Unknown South Carolina Department of Social Services
Employee; DOE 3, Unknown South Carolina Department of
Social Services Employee,
Defendants.
-----------------------------AIS-DSD SUPPORT GROUP; THE PROGRAM FOR THE STUDY OF
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE-INFORMATION SOCIETY PROJECT AT THE
YALE LAW SCHOOL AND CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS,
Amici Supporting Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Charleston.
David C. Norton, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-01303-DCN)

Argued:

September 17, 2014

Decided:

January 26, 2015

Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Reversed and remanded with instructions by unpublished opinion.
Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Senior
Judge Davis joined.

ARGUED: Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia,
South Carolina; James Ben Alexander, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD,
P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; Elloree Ann Ganes, HOOD LAW
FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants.
Kristi
Lee Graunke, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, Atlanta, Georgia, for
3

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 4 of 16

Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Kenneth N. Shaw, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD,
P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant Dr. James
Amrhein.
Robert H. Hood, Barbara Wynne Showers, Deborah
Harrison Sheffield, HOOD LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellants Dr. Ian Aaronson and Dr. Yaw AppiagyeiDankah.
William H. Davidson, II, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A.,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants Kim Aydlette, Meredith
Williams, Candice Davis, and Mary Searcy.
Kenneth M. Suggs,
JANET, JENNER AND SUGGS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Alesdair
H. Ittelson, David Dinielli, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER,
Montgomery, Alabama; Anne Tamar-Mattis, ADVOCATES FOR INFORMED
CHOICE, Cotati, California; John Lovi, William Ellerbe, STEPTOE
AND JOHNSON LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee.
Suzanne B.
Goldberg, Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL,
New York, New York, for Amicus AIS-DSD Support Group. Priscilla
J. Smith, LAW OFFICE OF PRISCILLA J. SMITH, Brooklyn, New York,
for Amicus The Program for the Study of Reproductive JusticeInformation Society Project at The Yale Law School and
Constitutional Scholars.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

4

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 5 of 16

DIAZ, Circuit Judge:
In April 2006, a doctor performed sex assignment surgery on
sixteen-month-old
South

Carolina

diagnosed

at

M.C.,

who

Department

was

birth

with

of

an

in

the

Social

intersex

legal

custody

Services
condition.

and

of

had

Four

the
been

months

after the surgery, Pamela and Mark Crawford took custody of M.C.
before adopting him in December 2006.

The Crawfords filed this

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on M.C.’s behalf, against the officials
and doctors who played a part in the decision to have M.C.
undergo the surgery.

The district court denied the officials’

and doctors’ motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity.
Because we find that no then-extant precedent gave fair warning
to those involved in the decision regarding M.C.’s surgery that
they

were

violating

his

clearly

established

constitutional

rights, we reverse.

I.
In our de novo review of a denial of a motion to dismiss
based

on

qualified

immunity,

we

take

“as

true

the

facts

as

alleged in the complaint, and view those facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Jenkins v. Medford, 119 F.3d

1156, 1159 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (footnote omitted).
draw the following facts from M.C.’s complaint.

5

We

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 6 of 16

M.C. was born with ovotesticular difference/disorder of sex
development (DSD).
where

the

Ovotesticular DSD is an intersex condition

individual

has

ovarian

and

testicular

Hospital records first identified M.C. as male, but

tissue.
treating

physicians later sometimes referred to M.C. as female.

Through

tests, examinations, and surgery, doctors determined that M.C.
had

“extremely

elevated”

testosterone

levels

and

that

his

genitalia consisted of a testicle, an ovotestis with ovarian and
testicular tissue, a phallus, scrotalized labia, a short vagina,
and no uterus.

J.A. 21-22.

In February 2005, M.C. was placed in the custody of the
South

Carolina

December

2006,

Department
when

the

of

Social

Crawfords

Services
adopted

(“SCDSS”)

him.

until

Before

the

adoption, SCDSS had was authorized to make medical decisions for
M.C.
After many examinations, tests, two surgeries, and numerous
consultations among SCDSS officials and doctors over the course
of a year, Drs. James Amrhein, Yaw Appiagyei-Dankah, and Ian
Aaronson
According

recommended
to

M.C,

that

the

M.C.

doctors

have

sex

recommended

assignment
the

surgery.

“irreversible,

invasive, and painful” surgery despite “no compelling biological
reason to raise M.C. as either male or female.”

J.A. 12, 23.

The doctors also knew that they could “assign M.C. a gender of
rearing and postpone surgery” and that the surgery carried risks
6

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 7 of 16

of “complete loss of sexual function, scarring, loss of male
fertility,

gender

misassignment,

distress.”

J.A. 24-25.

April

performed
This

a

surgery

2006,

with

feminizing
involved

lifetime

psychological

In short, M.C. alleges that the surgery

was medically unnecessary.
In

and

J.A. 25.
consent

genitoplasty
removing

SCDSS, 1

from

most

on

Dr.

Aaronson

sixteen-month-old

of

M.C.’s

phallus,

M.C.
his

testicle, and the testicular tissue in his ovotestis.
After adopting M.C., the Crawfords originally raised him as
a girl, consistent with the sex assignment surgery.

But as M.C.

grew older, it became clear that he identified as male, and he
is now living as a boy.
M.C., by and through the Crawfords, filed a § 1983 lawsuit
against the three doctors and seven SCDSS officials who played a
part in the decision to perform the sex assignment surgery.
alleged

Fourteenth

process violations.

Amendment

substantive

and

procedural

He
due

The district court denied the defendants’

motions to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.

The court

concluded that M.C. had pleaded sufficient facts to support his
contention that the defendants “violated his clearly established
constitutional right to procreation.”
1

J.A. 244.

The defendants

We do not consider the defendants’ assertion that M.C.’s
birth mother also consented to the sex assignment surgery
because that was not alleged in the complaint.

7

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 8 of 16

appealed, and we have jurisdiction.

See Winfield v. Bass, 106

F.3d 525, 528 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“To the extent that an
order of a district court rejecting a governmental official’s
qualified

immunity

defense

turns

on

a

question

of

law,

it

is . . . subject to immediate appeal.”).

II.
A.
To

avoid

dismissal

of

a

complaint

after

a

qualified

immunity defense is raised, a plaintiff must allege sufficient
facts to “make out a violation of a constitutional right” and
the court must find that this right “was clearly established at
the time of” the alleged violation.

Pearson v. Callahan, 555

U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Courts

are “permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding
which

of

the

two

prongs

of

the

qualified

immunity

analysis

should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the
particular case at hand.”

Id. at 236.

The right at issue must be defined “at a high level of
particularity.”

Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 391 (4th Cir.

2013) (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 251
(4th Cir. 1999)).

“This is not to say that an official action

is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in
question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say
8

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 9 of 16

that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be
apparent.”

Anderson

v.

Creighton,

483

U.S.

635,

640

(1987)

(citation omitted).
To be clearly established, “[t]he contours of the right
must

be

sufficiently

clear

that

a

reasonable

official

understand that what he is doing violates that right.”
law

can

be

clearly

established

“even

in

novel

would

Id.

The

factual

circumstances” so long as officials had “fair notice” that their
conduct violated a constitutional right.

Hope v. Pelzer, 536

U.S. 730, 739-41 (2002).
The “salient question” before us is “whether the state of
the law in [2006] gave [the defendants] fair warning that their
alleged treatment of [M.C.] was unconstitutional.”

Id. at 741.

Because we find that the alleged rights at issue in this case
were not clearly established at the time of M.C.’s 2006 sex
assignment surgery, we need not reach the question of whether
M.C. alleged sufficient facts to show that the surgery violated
his constitutional rights.

See, e.g., Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-

45.
B.
We

first

consider

M.C.’s

contention,

accepted

by

the

district court, that the defendants had fair warning that the
sex

assignment

reproduction.

surgery

violated

his

constitutional

right

to

In support of this proposition, M.C. draws our
9

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

attention

to

Filed: 01/26/2015

three

cases:

Pg: 10 of 16

Planned

Parenthood

of

Southeastern

Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Skinner v. Oklahoma
ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); and Avery v. County of
Burke, 660 F.2d 111 (4th Cir. 1981).

Although we acknowledge

the broad statements in these cases about reproductive rights,
we cannot say that a reasonable official would understand them
as

clearly

establishing

an

infant’s

constitutional

right

to

delay sex assignment surgery.
In

Casey,

essential

the

Supreme

holding

of

“the

right

recognizing
abortion

before

Roe

Court

reaffirmed

the

three-part

v.

Wade,

410

U.S.

113

of

the

woman

to

choose

to

viability

and

to

obtain

it

(1973),
have

without

an

undue

interference from the State”; confirming “the State’s power to
restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains
exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or
health”;

and

legitimate

establishing

interests

“the

from

the

principle
outset

of

that
the

the

State

pregnancy

has
in

protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus
that may become a child.”

Casey, 505 U.S. at 846.

Skinner involved Oklahoma’s statutory scheme to sterilize
inmates classified as habitual criminals.

316 U.S. at 536-37.

In finding the scheme unconstitutional, the Court focused its
analysis on how the law “la[id] an unequal hand on those who
ha[d] committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and
10

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 11 of 16

sterilize[d] one and not the other.”

Id. at 541.

The Court

gave the example that the sterilization law did not apply to
embezzlers but did apply to those who committed grand larceny.
Id. at 541-42.
In Avery, we considered the case of a fifteen-year-old girl
who was misdiagnosed with sickle cell trait and then counseled
by state actors to be sterilized.
their

advice,

“Avery

and

her

660 F.2d at 113.
mother

Relying on

consented

to

the

sterilization,” but later tests showed that she did not have
sickle cell trait.
sterilized”

Id.

because

Avery claimed “that she was wrongfully
of

the

misdiagnosis

and

“because

sterilization is not medically recommended or proper, even when
there has been a correct diagnosis of [sickle cell] trait.”

Id.

She sued the individuals who recommended sterilization and their
employers, the local county and its Board of Health and Board of
Social Services.
Concluding that “[t]he county and the boards may be liable
under

§ 1983

if

their

policies

or

customs

actually

caused

Avery’s injuries,” we found that summary judgment in favor of
the local government entities was improper because a genuine
issue existed as to whether the county health boards’ failure to
implement policies for counseling and sterilizing people with
sickle

cell

trait

amounted

to

11

a

tacit

authorization

or

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 12 of 16

deliberate indifference to Avery’s right of procreation.

Id. at

114-15. 2
Relying on the principles gleaned from these cases, the
district
clearly
think,

court

concluded

established
however,

that

“right

that

this

the

to

defendants

violated

procreation.”

frames

the

right

J.A.
too

M.C.’s

244.

broadly

We
for

purposes of assessing the defendants’ entitlement to qualified
immunity.
the

See, e.g., Winfield, 106 F.3d at 531 (holding that

district

inappropriate
whether

a

court
“degree

much

more

erred
of

in

defining

abstraction”

factually

and

detailed

the

right

instead
right

at

an

considering
was

clearly

established).
In our view, the alleged right at issue is that of an
infant to delay medically unnecessary sex assignment surgery.
By “medically unnecessary,” we mean that no imminent threat to
M.C.’s health or life required state officials to consent to the
surgery, or doctors to perform it.

Viewed in that light, we do

not think that Casey, Skinner, or Avery put reasonable officials
on notice that they were violating M.C.’s constitutional rights.
As we have repeatedly emphasized, “[o]fficials are not liable
for bad guesses in gray areas; they are liable for transgressing
2

Notably, however, Avery made no mention of the merits of
the claim against the individual defendants.

12

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

bright lines.”
Cir. 1992).

Pg: 13 of 16

Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295, 298 (4th

We hold that the defendants did not transgress such

a bright line in this case.
C.
Although
contends

that

not

reached

the

by

the

district

defendants

had

fair

court,

warning

M.C.

that

the

also
sex

assignment surgery violated his constitutional rights to bodily
integrity and privacy.

For the right to bodily integrity, M.C.

points us to Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985), and Rochin v.
California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

For the right to privacy, M.C.

relies on Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

We find these

cases too dissimilar to give the defendants fair notice of the
alleged constitutional violation.
Lee

and

Rochin

involved

medical

procedures

to

secure

evidence against individuals suspected of committing a crime.
In Lee, the Court disapproved of a compelled surgical procedure
to extract a bullet that could connect Lee to a robbery.

470

U.S.

and

at

755.

unconstitutional

The
three

Court

in

police

Rochin
officers’

found

shocking

struggle

to

open

Rochin’s mouth to extract the capsules he had swallowed and,
when that method proved unsuccessful, forced stomach pumping to
retrieve the capsules.

342 U.S. at 166, 172.

Neither of these

cases, however, gave the defendants fair notice that they were

13

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 14 of 16

violating M.C.’s right to bodily integrity by performing sex
assignment surgery that M.C. contends was medically unnecessary.
As for Lawrence, that case struck down “a Texas statute
making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in
certain intimate sexual conduct.”
think

that

a

case

barring

a

539 U.S. at 562.

criminal

We do not

prosecution

based

on

intimate, private sexual conduct between consenting adults gave
the

defendants

fair

notice

that

they

could

not

perform

sex

assignment surgery on M.C. because it might impact his future
sexual autonomy.
D.
M.C. also alleges that the defendants violated his clearly
established procedural due process rights by not seeking a “predeprivation hearing” “in which a neutral fact finder could weigh
the

risks

surgery,

and
as

alternatives
alleging,

purported
well

to

he

as

sterilization.

the

surgery.”

equates

benefits

the

of

early

possibility
Appellee’s
sex

of

Br.

assignment

[sex

at

assignment]

postponement
46-47.

surgery

to

In

or
so

forced

To support his argument, M.C. relies on Buck v.

Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927); a concurring opinion in Skinner, 316
U.S. at 543; and numerous state statutes and cases requiring a
court hearing “before an individual incapable of consent can be
sterilized.”

Appellee’s Br. at 48.

14

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 15 of 16

We find, however, that reasonable officials in 2006 did not
have

fair

warning

that

they

were

violating

M.C.’s

clearly

established rights by not seeking a hearing before performing,
or consenting to, the sex assignment surgery.

M.C.’s citations

to state statutes and cases are unpersuasive because many postdate

2006,

when

the

surgery

took

place,

and

all

come

from

outside South Carolina, where the surgery took place.
Moreover,

institutions

and

“of

sterilization

Buck

mental

and

Skinner

involved

defectives”

“habitual

intentional,
committed

criminal[s],”

respectively.

274 U.S. at 205; Skinner, 316 U.S. at 536.
the

complaint

in

this

case

alleges

that

to

certain
state
Buck,

In stark contrast,
the

sex

assignment

surgery was performed on an infant with “ambiguous genitals” and
that

such

capacity.”
brief

surgery

“may

reduce

or

eliminate

J.A. 11, 19 (emphasis added).

describes

the

surgery

as

reproductive

And although M.C.’s

“fertility-destroying”

and

a

“surgical[] castrat[ion],” Appellee’s Br. at 45, the complaint
more

cautiously

sterilization,
“risks.”

describes

with

“loss

the
of

surgery

male

as

a

fertility”

as

“potential”
one

of

the

J.A. 24-25, 31-32.

While it is true that “the very action in question” need
not have “previously been held unlawful” for an official to be
stripped

of

qualified

immunity,

the

unlawfulness

must

nonetheless “be apparent” “in the light of pre-existing law.”
15

Appeal: 13-2178

Doc: 92

Filed: 01/26/2015

Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640.

Pg: 16 of 16

We conclude that the authority on

which M.C. relies did not make it apparent that the defendants
acted unlawfully by not seeking a hearing before the surgery.

III.
Our core inquiry is whether a reasonable official in 2006
would

have

performing
violated

fair
sex

a

warning

assignment

clearly

from

then-existing

surgery

established

on

precedent

that

sixteen-month-old

M.C.

constitutional

right.

In

concluding that these officials did not have fair warning, we do
not mean to diminish the severe harm that M.C. claims to have
suffered.

While M.C. may well have a remedy under state law, 3 we

hold

qualified

that

immunity

bars

his

federal

constitutional

claims because the defendants did not violate M.C.’s clearly
established rights.
We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of the
defendants’ motions to dismiss and remand with instructions to
dismiss the complaint.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

3

We have been advised that M.C. filed separate suits in
state court asserting state law claims against the defendants.

16