article: A trans woman housed in a mens' prison in Texas filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on June 8, 2015 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiff represented herself in the trial court, and she was represented on appeal by Stephen Braga, a law professor at the University of Virginia. The case was assigned to Judge Robert Pitman. The plaintiff alleged that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's blanket ban on gender affirmation surgery violated the Eighth Amendment because it amounted to deliberate indifference to her medical needs. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that, while incarcerated, her primary care physician was not adequately trained on transgender care and failed to provide her with treatment consistent with the WPATH standards of care. He refused to provide her with an individualized assessment or treatment plan, which denied her access to various forms of treatment that may have been medically necessary. The plaintiff had on several occasions used the prison's formal grievance system to protest this lack of care as well as the blanket policy to no avail. The defendants named in this case were the TDCJ Director, the primary care physician who refused to provide the plaintiff with treatment for her gender dysphoria, and and unknown University of Texas Medical Branch official. The Director moved for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim. On June 8, 2015, the district court granted this motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The plaintiff filed an appeal in the Fifth Circuit pro se on September 16, 2016. On October 10, 2017, Professor Stephen Bega began representing her. Judges Smith, Ho and Barksdale heard the case and released an opinion on March 29, 2019 (920 F.3d 212). The majority opinion, written by Judge Ho, held that there had been no Eighth Amendment violation, characterizing the WPATH standards as simply one side of a contested debate rather than the widely accepted standard in the medical field. Judge Ho held that because the doctor and prison administration had merely chosen a side, they were not demonstrating the malicious intent necessary to make out a claim of deliberate indifference. Judge Barksdale's dissent, on the other hand, took issue with both the summary judgment procedure used by the lower court and the majority's assessment of the merits. Specifically, he disagreed with the majority's characterization of WPATH, noting that it had become a widely accepted norm that had been acknowledged as such in both the Fourth and Seventh Circuits. Judge Barksdale also questioned whether authorities cited by the majority supported its use of he/him/his pronouns to refer to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari (an appeal) in the Supreme Court of the United States on July 1, 2019. The Supreme Court announced on December 9, 2019 that they had declined to hear the case (140 S. Ct. 653). The case is now closed. While this case was still ongoing, the plaintiff filed another lawsuit alleging retaliation in response to pursuing these claims. For more information, see <i>Gibson v. Jean-Baptiste</i>, No. 6:17-cv-00042 (W.D. Tex.)
summary: A trans woman incarcerated in a men's prison in Texas filed a pro se suit against the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and her primary care physician in the prison. She filed her complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on June 8, 2015. She alleged that TDCJ blanket policy refusing to provide gender affirming surgery and the doctor's refusal to give her an individualized assessment regarding her gender identity disorder violated the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a law professor from the University of Virginia began representing her. The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the defendants on the merits, with a dissenting opinion from Judge Barksdale. The plaintiff unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court review, and the case is now closed.