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)

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