On September 9, 1999, an inmate at the Marion Correctional Treatment Center in Marion, Virginia, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Virginia Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The plaintiff, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that her constitutional rights had been violated by inadequate medical treatment for her gender identity disorder (GID).

On January 13, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia (Judge James C. Turk) denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff appealed. On August 4, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Judges Francis Dominic Murnaghan Jr., William Walter Wilkins, and Robert Bruce King) issued a per curiam opinion dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute. De'Lonta v. Angelone, 225 F.3d 653 (4th Cir. 2000). The plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing by the Fourth Circuit, and on September 15, 2000, the Fourth Circuit (Judges Wilkins, King, and Diana Jane Gribbon Motz) dismissed the appeal. De'Lonta v. Angelone, 230 F.3d 1352 (4th Cir. 2000).

On October 9, 2001, the district court (Judge Turk) dismissed the plaintiff's case for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The plaintiff appealed. On May 27, 2003, the Fourth Circuit (Judge Wilkins) reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further consideration, holding that the plaintiff's need for protection against continued self-mutilation was a serious medical need to which prison officials could not be seriously indifferent, and that the plaintiff stated a claim by alleging inadequate medical treatment to prevent self-mutilation upon withdrawal of her hormone therapy. De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2003).

The case settled in June 2004; the terms of the settlement require the prison to update its policies regarding treatment of inmates with GID, beginning with intake evaluation, prohibits harassment, requires that treatment plans be made and carried out by specialists, and that inmates with GID be housed in the most appropriate setting reasonably available.

The plaintiff's treatment was assigned to a specialist with expertise in GID. Prison officials were required to provide all necessary information about plaintiff's condition and to facilitate any referrals and consultations with other medical specialists necessary to assist in formulation of an appropriate treatment plan. Plaintiff's counsel was to receive periodic monitoring reports. On October 7, 2004, the court issued a stipulated order dismissing the case.

Kristen Sagar - 09/10/2006


compress summary