University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Edmo v. Idaho Department of Correction PC-ID-0012
Docket / Court 1:17-cv-00151-BLW ( D. Idaho )
State/Territory Idaho
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Prison Conditions
Attorney Organization National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)
Case Summary
The plaintiff in this case is a transgender, Native American woman. She was incarcerated at facilities run by the Idaho Department of Corrections. Despite multiple attempts at self-castration, the Idaho Department of Corrections and its employees had denied her medically necessary care, refused to ... read more >
The plaintiff in this case is a transgender, Native American woman. She was incarcerated at facilities run by the Idaho Department of Corrections. Despite multiple attempts at self-castration, the Idaho Department of Corrections and its employees had denied her medically necessary care, refused to transfer her, and failed to provide accommodations for her to express her gender identity. The defendants refused to provide the plaintiff with hormone treatment and gender confirmation surgery. Because of this, the plaintiff attempted to castrate herself on two occasions. Additionally, employees at the facilities punished the plaintiff by placing her in solitary confinement when she attempted to express her gender identity by modifying her clothes and wearing her hair in a ponytail.

Represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the plaintiff filed suit on April 6, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The initial complaint was handwritten. An amended complaint was filed in September 2017.
This complaint alleged that the Idaho Department of Corrections and its private contractor Corizon violated her Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment and her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. She alleged discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis of sex as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for discrimination on the basis of disability. In addition to constitutional claims, she filed multiple state negligence claims. She requested injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief in the form of compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.

On June 1, 2018, Judge B. Lynn Winmill granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s negligence claims and the claims she brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act. At this hearing the court also dismissed the plaintiff's request that the court enjoin the defendant to transfer the plaintiff to a female facility.

Over six months later, on December 13, 2018, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in part. The court ordered the defendants to provide adequate medical care and gender confirmation surgery as promptly as possible. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211391, WL 6571203 *51, 358 F.Supp.3d 1103. This order did not address injunctive relief regarding gender-appropriate clothing and commissary items because the Idaho Department of Corrections implemented a gender dysphoria policy addressing these requests on October 5, 2018.

The defendants appealed the district court’s preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit on January 9, 2019. (Appeal Docket No. 19-35017 and 19-35019).

Back in the district court, on Jan 31, 2019 the plaintiff filed another amended complaint. This complaint was very similar to the last one, but removed the Eighth Amendment failure to protect from harm claim. Also in the district court, the defendants filed a motion to stay the December 13, 2018 order pending appeal, which Judge Winmill denied. 2019 WL 1027979 (March 4, 2019 D. Idaho).

While the case was on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff filed a motion in the district court for an indicative ruling pursuant to Rulea 62.1 and 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This motion asked the court to make explicit findings that
the injunctive relief ordered ... [in the Court’s prior memorandum decision and order in this case] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that there is no evidence that granting this relief will have any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system.
Judge Winmill denied this motion as unnecessary because her prior memorandum complies with the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirements for preliminary injunctive relief. 2019 WL 1546927 (April 9, 2019 D. Idaho).

In the Ninth Circuit, oral argument was held on May 16, 2019 before a panel comprised of Circuit Judges M. Margaret McKeown and Ronald M. Gould, and District Judge Robert S. Lasnik. On May 30, 2019, the Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court to address three issues. First, the district court needed to clarify if the order denying defendant's motion for stay pending appeal was meant to renew the preliminary injunction. Second, the court needed to clarify if its ruling on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction also granted the plaintiff permanent injunctive relief. Finally, the court needed to clarify whether the plaintiff succeeded on the merits of her Eighth Amendment claim for permanent injunctive relief. In an opinion by Judge Winmill issued the next day, the court renewed the preliminary injunctive relief, clarified that the grant of preliminary injunctive relief also granted the plaintiff permanent injunctive relief, and clarified that the court had previously concluded that the plaintiff succeeded on the merits of her Eighth Amendment claim for permanent injunctive relief. 2019 WL 2319527 (May 31, 2019 D. Idaho). The Ninth Circuit issued a per curiam opinion on August 23, 2019 affirming all the decisions of the district court. 935 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2019).

The defendants appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit on July 1, 2019. (Appeal Docket No. 19-35552).

On October 24, 2019, the district court issued an order requiring defendants to provide all pre-surgical treatments and corollary appointments or consultations necessary for gender confirmation surgery. The defendants filed yet another appeal on October 31, 2019 to the Ninth Circuit regarding Judge Winmill's October 24, 2019 order. (Appeal Docket No. 19-35917). The Ninth Circuit dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The same day, in the district court, the defendants filed an expedited motion to stay the court's October 24, 2019 order pending appeal. On November 8, 2019, Judge Winmill issued an opinion denying the defendant's expedited motion to stay. In this opinion, Judge Winmill deferred setting a deadline for the plaintiff to receive her first pre-surgical treatment and also allowed the court to hold a hearing on this limited issue. 2019 WL 5865620 (Nov. 8, 2019 D. Idaho).

A hearing was held on November 21, 2019 before Judge Winmill. At the conclusion of this hearing, Judge Winmill reinstated her previous October 24, 2019 order and ordered that the plaintiff must begin receiving pre-surgical treatments no later than November 26, 2019.

The defendants requested rehearing in front of the Ninth Circuit en banc, which was denied as the request failed to receive a majority of the votes of non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. The Ninth Circuit issued an order denying rehearing en banc along with an opinion by Circuit Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain respecting the decision, and and dissents from denial of rehearing en banc prepared by Judge Collins and Judge Bumatay. The entire document was 161 pages. 949 F.3d 489 (9th Cir. Feb 10, 2020).

On March 2, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to stay litigation in the district court pending the defendants' forthcoming appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The plaintiff did not oppose the stay, but requested limited exceptions necessary to preserve critical evidence. In April 2017, Judge Winmill issued an order granting the stay. In the order, Judge Winmill ordered the defendants to preserve all relevant evidence and to continue to provide Plaintiff with pre-surgical treatment as required by the October 24, 2019 order. 2020 WL 1907560 (April 17, 2020, D. Idaho)

On May 6, 2020, the defendants filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. (Appeal Docket No. 19-1280). The issues brought before the Supreme Court were
[w]hether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the guidelines set by an advocacy organization constitute the constitutional minima for inmate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, when the First, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have all concluded that they do not.
and
Whether the Ninth Circuit’s holding that a prison health care provider’s individualized medical decision was unreasonable and therefore constituted deliberate indifference, regardless of his subjective reasoning, conflicts with Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (holding that mere negligence does not establish deliberate indifference), and Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (holding the provider must have known of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to find deliberate indifference).
On the same day, the defendant-petitioner's submitted an application to stay the district court's order to Justice Kagan. On May 21, 2020, Justice Kagan
denied the application. 2020 WL 2569747 (May 21, 2020 S. Ct.).

The plaintiff-respondent has filed an opposition to the defendant-petitioner's brief. The defendant has until August 10, 2020 to file a response. As of July 2020, the case remains open in front of the Supreme Court.

Keagan Potts - 02/20/2019
Sabrina Glavota - 07/31/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Equal Protection
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Reasonable Accommodation
Defendant-type
Corrections
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Sexual orientatation
General
Disciplinary procedures
Disciplinary segregation
Gay/lesbian/transgender
Suicide prevention
Medical/Mental Health
Medical care, general
Self-injurious behaviors
Suicide prevention
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
State law
Defendant(s) Corizon Incorporated
Idaho Department of Correction
Plaintiff Description Transgender Native American female inmate
Indexed Lawyer Organizations National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Filed 04/06/2017
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Docket(s)
1:17-cv-00151-BLW (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0012-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/02/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 10]
PC-ID-0012-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum in Support of IDOC Defendants' First Motion for Dispositive Relief [ECF# 43]
PC-ID-0012-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/01/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Decision and Order (2018 WL 2745898) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0012-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/07/2018
Source: Westlaw
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order [ECF# 149] (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0012-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/13/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Third Amended Complaint [ECF# 172]
PC-ID-0012-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/31/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Decision and Order [ECF# 175] (2019 WL 1027979) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0012-0006.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/04/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Decision and Order [ECF# 193] (2019 WL 1546927) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0012-0007.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/09/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 90] (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0012-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/30/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 196] (2019 WL 2319527) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0012-0009.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/31/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 96-1] (935 F.3d 757)
PC-ID-0012-0013.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/23/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Requiring Defendants Provide all Pre-Surgical Treatments and Related Corollary Appointments or Consultations Necessary for Gender Confirmation Surgery [ECF# 225] (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0012-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/24/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Defendants' Expedited Motion to Stay [ECF# 244] (2019 WL 5865620) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0012-0011.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/08/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# 105-1] (949 F.3d 489)
PC-ID-0012-0014.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 02/10/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay [ECF# 277] (2020 WL 1907560) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0012-0012.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/17/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Petition for Writ of Certiorari [ECF# BL-1]
PC-ID-0012-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/06/2020
Source: Supreme Court website
show all people docs
Judges Gould, Ronald Murray (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0013
Lasnik, Robert S. (W.D. Wash.) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0008 | PC-ID-0012-0013
McKeown, M. Margaret (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0013
O'Scannlain, Diarmuid Fionntain (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0014
Winmill, B. Lynn (D. Idaho) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0003 | PC-ID-0012-0005 | PC-ID-0012-0006 | PC-ID-0012-0007 | PC-ID-0012-0009 | PC-ID-0012-0010 | PC-ID-0012-0011 | PC-ID-0012-0012 | PC-ID-0012-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Chen, Alexander (California) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0001 | PC-ID-0012-0004 | PC-ID-0012-9000
Durham, Craig (Idaho) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0001 | PC-ID-0012-0004 | PC-ID-0012-9000
Ferguson, Deborah A (Idaho) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0001 | PC-ID-0012-0004 | PC-ID-0012-9000
Kane, Brian (Idaho) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0015
Larrondo, Megan A (Idaho) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0015
Rifkin, Lori E (California) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-9000
Rifkin, Lori E (California) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0001 | PC-ID-0012-0004
Shanbhag, Shaleen (California) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-9000
Stormer, Dan Lewis (California) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0001 | PC-ID-0012-0004 | PC-ID-0012-9000
Wasden, Lawrence G. (Idaho) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0015
Whelan, Amy E. (California) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0001 | PC-ID-0012-0004 | PC-ID-0012-9000
Wilensky, Julie (California) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0001 | PC-ID-0012-0004 | PC-ID-0012-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Crecelius, Marisa Swank (Iowa) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-9000
Eaton, Dylan Alexander (Idaho) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0015 | PC-ID-0012-9000
Hall, Brady James (Idaho) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0002 | PC-ID-0012-0015 | PC-ID-0012-9000
Jensen, Bryce C (Utah) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0015 | PC-ID-0012-9000
West, J Kevin (Idaho) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-0015 | PC-ID-0012-9000
Other Lawyers England, Christine Gealy (California) show/hide docs
PC-ID-0012-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -