Denegal v. Farrell et al

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 27 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and ORDER GRANTING 37 Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Sur-Reply (Doc. 36 ) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/24/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DWAYNE DENEGAL (FATIMA
SHABAZZ),
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 1:15-cv-01251-DAD-MJS (PC)

v.
R. FARRELL, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STRIKE, AND STRIKING DOC. NO. 36

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 39, 27, 37, 36)
CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

18
19
20

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

21

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth

22

Amendment medical indifference and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims against

23

defendants Coffin, Creyer, Lewis, and Sundaram, while defendant Farrell is named only in

24

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. (Doc. No. 12.) The matter was

25

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302 of

26

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

27

On January 12, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff’s

28

claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot and barred by the Plata and Coleman class
1

1

action suits. (Doc. No. 27.) On May 31, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

2

recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. No. 39.)

3

Defendant filed objections to the findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 42), and plaintiff filed

4

a response. (Doc. No. 43.)1

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

6

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

7

and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis and will therefore adopt

8

them in full.

9

In their objections, defendants repeat the same arguments advanced in support of their

10

motion to dismiss, namely that plaintiff’s medical indifference claim has been rendered moot

11

because she is now receiving hormone therapy, a new California Department of Corrections and

12

Rehabilitation (CDCR) policy now provides sex reassignment surgery to transgender inmates if

13

found to be medically necessary, and that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Plata and Coleman

14

class actions.
The court need not repeat the magistrate judge’s proper analysis with respect to

15
16

defendants’ arguments. The undersigned does, however, note that the magistrate judge correctly

17

found that plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim is not restricted to the

18

provision of hormone therapy, but rather, seeks to enjoin defendants “from interfering with the

19

discretion of mental health and other medical professionals involved” in her care. (Doc. No. 39 at

20

7) (quoting Doc. No. 12 at 24.) The magistrate judge also correctly concluded the regulation in

21

question expressly provides that vaginoplasty is medically unnecessary except for the treatment

22

of cystocele or rectocele and that regulation has the force of law in California. (Doc. No. 39 at

23

10) (citing California Teachers Ass’n v. California Comm’n on Teacher Credentialing, 111 Cal.

24

App. 4th 1001, 1008 (2003)). Thus, § 3350.1(b) continues to constitute a blanket ban on sex re-

25

assignment surgery for transgender women inmates such as plaintiff. Finally, the magistrate

26

judge correctly found that plaintiff’s individual claims are not barred by the class action litigation

27
28

1

The magistrate judge also recommended granting defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s
unauthorized sur-reply. No objections were filed with respect to that recommendation.
2

1

in the Plata and Coleman cases because here plaintiff is bringing an individual claim for

2

injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 39 at 12) (citing Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1137 (9th Cir.

3

2013) (“Where a California prisoner brings an independent claim for injunctive relief solely on

4

his own behalf for specific medical treatment denied to him, Plata does not bar the prisoner’s

5

claim for injunctive relief.”)).

6

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above:

7

1. The findings and recommendations issued May 31, 2017 (Doc. No. 39) are adopted in

8
9

full;
2. Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s sur-reply (Doc. Nos. 36, 37) is granted;

10

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 27) is denied; and

11

4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 24, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3