Goninan v. Washington Department of Corrections et al

Filing 35

ORDER directing defendants to respond to plaintiff's surreply and the attached exhibits by 2/9/18. Defendants should address what, if any, changes this filing makes to the argument presented in their response (Dkt. 27) and what changes, if any, have occurred in plaintiff's treatment plan. The Clerk is directed to RE-NOTE plaintiff's 9 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and 20 MOTION for Oral Argument to 2/9/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Nathan Goninan, Prisoner ID: 869663)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 NATHAN ROBERT GONINAN, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05714-BHS-JRC ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate 17 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 (b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR 1, 18 MJR 3, and MJR 4. 19 Plaintiff Nathan Robert Goninan, a.k.a. Nonnie M. Lotusflower, is a transgender prisoner 20 who filed this action seeking additional gender affirming therapies, including access to makeup 21 and evaluation for sex reassignment surgery. She filed a motion for a temporary restraining 22 order, asking the Court to order defendants to provide her with these therapies. Dkt. 9. 23 Defendants responded, stating that, because plaintiff was still a relatively new inmate in the 24 ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE - 1 1 Washington Department of Corrections, her mental health plan is still evolving. Dkt. 27. They 2 stated that makeup is not “prescribed” for individuals with gender dysphoria and that it was not 3 yet known whether sex reassignment surgery was medically necessary for plaintiff. Id. at 3, 6. 4 They further indicated that plaintiff was engaging in ongoing treatment and defendants would 5 consider additional therapies when necessary. Id. at 6. 6 Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. 25) and a surreply (Dkt. 30). In her surreply, plaintiff 7 included several medical documents both from the Washington and Oregon Departments of 8 Correction. Dkt. 30 at 11-28. One of these documents was a medical record signed by Dr. 9 Patricia Zeisler, a psychologist with the Washington Department of Corrections. Id. at 11-15. In 10 her report dated December 4, 2017, she indicated that plaintiff was engaging in self-harm 11 because of her gender dysphoria and that “[a]t this time, corrective surgery is medically 12 necessary in order to completely eradicate the gender dysphoria.” Id. at 13. She further 13 recommended that plaintiff receive access to makeup until such time as the surgery was 14 complete. Id. at 14. This is a direct contradiction of defendants’ response to plaintiff’s motion 15 (Dkt. 27) and the declaration filed by defendants (Dkt. 28). 16 Therefore, it is ORDERED: 17 1) Defendants are directed to respond to plaintiff’s surreply and the attached exhibits by 18 February 9, 2018. Defendants should address what, if any, changes this filing makes 19 to the argument presented in their response (Dkt. 27) and what changes, if any, have 20 occurred in plaintiff’s treatment plan. 21 22 23 24 ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE - 2 1 2) The Clerk is directed to renote plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (Dkt. 9) and motion for oral argument (Dkt. 20) to February 9, 2018. 1 2 3 Dated this 9th day of January, 2018. A 4 5 J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 10), motion to proceed without exhausting administrative remedies (Dkt. 11), and motion for oral argument on her motion for counsel (Dkt. 19) are addressed in a separate order. ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?