On February 24, 2009, a prisoner serving her sentence in a facility operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The plaintiff, represented by public interest and private attorneys, ...
read more >
On February 24, 2009, a prisoner serving her sentence in a facility operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The plaintiff, represented by public interest and private attorneys, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the prison's refusal to provide medical care for plaintiff's Gender Identity Disorder (GID) constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The plaintiff was diagnosed with GID in 2005 by mental health providers employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Despite knowledge of the diagnosis, the prison refused to provide medical treatment. Following a suicide attempt and self-mutilation by the plaintiff, the prison transferred the plaintiff to an inpatient mental health unit. At the mental health unit, the plaintiff was still denied sufficient treatment, even being disciplined for continued attempts at self-mutilation. The plaintiff's complaint alleged that the prison promulgated and enforced a policy that denies prisoners with GID, including the plaintiff, individualized evaluation and constitutionally adequate treatment. Furthermore, she alleged that the prison's medical director and psychiatrist failed and refused to treat her GID condition.
On July 10, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. After a motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied, the parties entered into mediation and settlement talks. As part of the parties' settlement agreement, the Federal Bureau of Prisons agreed to issue guidance relating to the treatment of prisoners with GID disorder. The defendant also agreed to: note in plaintiff's medical file to address her as "she", sign a declaration indicating it has no opposition to a name change, continue to provide the plaintiff with appropriate hormone treatment unless medically contraindicated, provide the plaintiff access to female commissary items, provide hair removal treatment, consult with the plaintiff regarding vocal therapy, and evaluate treatment after eighteen months.
On September 29, 2011, the court (Judge Joseph Tauro) approved the parties' stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Priyah Kaul - 11/02/2014