Edmo v. Corizon Incorporated et al

Filing 175

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendants Joint Motion to Stay Order [Dkt. 149 ] Pending Appeal (Dkt. 156 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

Case 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Document 175 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ADREE EDMO,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00151-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Stay Order [Dkt. 149] Pending
Appeal. Dkt. 156. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
The Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Order in this case
after a three-day evidentiary hearing. Dkt. 149. During that hearing, Ms. Adree Edmo
established that she was entitled to gender confirmation surgery by June 13, 2019. The
Court will not repeat all the factual and legal conclusions that led to its decision, but will
highlight the following portion of the Court’s order:
The risks of not providing gender confirmation surgery to Ms. Edmo include
surgical self-treatment, emotional decompensation, and risk of suicide given her
high degree of suicide ideation. Tr. 80:24:81:8, 264:13-22. If she is not provided
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Case 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Document 175 Filed 03/04/19 Page 2 of 4

with surgery, Ms. Edmo has indicated that she will try self-surgery again to deal
with her extreme episodes of gender dysphoria. Tr. 199:24-200:5. Given that Ms.
Edmo made increasing progress on her first two self-surgery attempts, it is likely
that Ms. Edmo will be successful if she attempts self-surgery again. Tr. 264:1322.
Edmo v. Idaho Dep’t of Correction, No. 1:17-CV-00151-BLW, 2018 WL 6571203, at
*12 (D. Idaho Dec. 13, 2018) (emphasis added).
LEGAL STANDARD
Granting a stay is “an exercise of judicial discretion” that is “dependent upon the
circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433, (2009). The
Supreme Court suggested in Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) that the trial
court, in exercising its discretion, should consider four factors: “(1) whether the stay
applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2)
whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of
the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4)
where the public interest lies.”
The Ninth Circuit has suggested that the Hilton factors should be applied using a
“sliding scale” approach in which a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker
showing of another. Peck Ormsby Const. Co. v. City of Rigby, No. CIV. 1:10-545 WBS,
2012 WL 914915, at *3 (D. Idaho Mar. 15, 2012). The moving party bears the burden of
showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of the court’s discretion and must
show at least a minimum threshold for each factor. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. However, the
“first two factors ... are the most critical.” Id.
ANALYSIS
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Case 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Document 175 Filed 03/04/19 Page 3 of 4

Defendants, in seeking a stay, rehash the arguments they presented during the
three-day evidentiary hearing in this case. The Court was unpersuaded by the arguments
then, and remains so now. Applying the Hilton factors to the findings of fact contained in
the Court’s prior decision, Defendants have failed to carry their burden to show that a
stay is appropriate.
While there is no certainty as to how this case will be viewed on appeal, the Court
is firmly convinced that its decision is supported by the facts and law presented during
the hearing. I must, therefore conclude that the Defendants have not made a strong
showing that they are likely to succeed on appeal.
The Court is not persuaded that the Defendants will be irreparably injured absent a
stay. Indeed, it is difficult to see how providing medical treatment to an inmate could
ever constitute an irreparable injury.
By comparison, the Court is convinced that issuing the stay will substantially
injure Ms. Edmo for the reasons identified in that portion of the Court’s decision quoted
above. Indeed, given Edmo’s past actions, time is of the essence.
Finally, I am also persuaded that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that
our prisons are not deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of its inmates.
The Court will offer just one more thought: Ms. Edmo’s testimony and that of her
experts conclusively established, in the Court’s opinion, that there is a substantial risk
that Ms. Edmo will make a third attempt to self-castrate if the Defendants continue to
deny her gender confirmation surgery. In short, her medical needs are urgent. The
Constitution requires Defendants to act accordingly.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Case 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Document 175 Filed 03/04/19 Page 4 of 4

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Stay Order [Dkt. 149] Pending Appeal (Dkt. 156) is
DENIED.

DATED: March 4, 2019
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4