Rosati v. Igbinoso, No. 13-15984 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals . Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiff, a transgender inmate, filed a pro se suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment through deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. Plaintiff alleged that she suffers from severe gender dysphoria for which sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) is the medically necessary treatment, but that prison officials refuse to provide the surgery. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim upon which relief could be granted where plaintiff plausibly alleges that she has severe gender dysphoria, citing repeated episodes of attempted self-castration despite continued hormone treatment, the medically accepted treatment for her dysphoria is SRS, and prison officials were aware of her medical history and need for treatment, but denied the surgery because of a blanket policy against SRS. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a pro se complaint brought by a California state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, when they refused to provide sexual reassignment surgery. The panel held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to state a claim. The panel held that plaintiff plausibly alleged that her symptoms (including repeated efforts at self-castration) were so severe that prison officials recklessly disregarded an excessive risk to her health by denying sexual reassignment surgery solely on the recommendation of a physician’s assistant with no experience in transgender medicine. The panel expressed no opinion on whether sexual reassignment surgery was medically necessary for plaintiff or whether prison officials have other legitimate reasons for denying her that treatment. The panel further held that on remand, the district court should address the merits of plaintiff’s Equal Protection Claim in the first instance.
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PHILIP WALKER ROSATI, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 13-15984 v. D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01213RRB IGBINOSO, Chief Medical Officer, Pleasant Valley State Prison; SUSAN L. HUBBARD, Director of California Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 8, 2015—San Francisco, California Filed June 26, 2015 Before: Barry G. Silverman, Ronald M. Gould, and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion 2 ROSATI V. IGBINOSO SUMMARY * Prisoner Civil Rights The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a pro se complaint brought by a California state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, when they refused to provide sexual reassignment surgery. The panel held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to state a claim. The panel held that plaintiff plausibly alleged that her symptoms (including repeated efforts at self-castration) were so severe that prison officials recklessly disregarded an excessive risk to her health by denying sexual reassignment surgery solely on the recommendation of a physician’s assistant with no experience in transgender medicine. The panel expressed no opinion on whether sexual reassignment surgery was medically necessary for plaintiff or whether prison officials have other legitimate reasons for denying her that treatment. The panel further held that on remand, the district court should address the merits of plaintiff’s Equal Protection Claim in the first instance. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ROSATI V. IGBINOSO 3 COUNSEL Jon W. Davidson, Peter C. Renn (argued), Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Los Angeles, California; Alison Hardy, Prison Law Office, Berkeley, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Jonathan L. Wolff, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jose A. ZelidonZepeda and Neah Huynh (argued), Deputy Attorneys General, San Francisco, California, for DefendantsAppellees. Cori A. Lable, Daniel V. McCaughey, Michael T. Packard, and Kevin P. Budris, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Amicus Curiae World Professional Association for Transgender Health. OPINION PER CURIAM: Philip Walker Rosati (now known as Mia Rosati) is a transgender inmate in the California prison system. 1 Rosati filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint claiming that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment through deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. Rosati alleges that she suffers from severe gender dysphoria for 1 Like the parties, we refer to Rosati in the feminine. 4 ROSATI V. IGBINOSO which sexual reassignment surgery (“SRS”) is the medically necessary treatment, but that prison officials refuse to provide the surgery. The district court dismissed the complaint at screening without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Rosati, now represented by counsel, appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; we reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings. In determining whether a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we apply the familiar standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of an inmate is “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–06 (1976). To demonstrate deliberate indifference, “plaintiffs must show that [prison officials] were (a) subjectively aware of the serious medical need and (b) failed to adequately respond.” Conn v. City of Reno, 591 F.3d 1081, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010), vacated, 131 S. Ct. 1812 (2011), reinstated in relevant part, 658 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2011). An inmate challenging denial of treatment must allege that the denial “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances,” and made “in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the inmate]’s health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). ROSATI V. IGBINOSO 5 1. “A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1212 (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). At oral argument, the state defendants conceded that the district judge erred by dismissing without leave to amend. This concession alone justifies reversal. But, even absent the concession, we conclude that the complaint, although not drafted with the skill and brevity expected of counsel, stated an Eighth Amendment claim upon which relief could be granted. See id. (noting that the court has “an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2. Rosati’s complaint plausibly alleges that she has severe gender dysphoria, citing repeated episodes of attempted self-castration despite continued hormone treatment. 2 Rosati also alleges that the medically accepted treatment for her dysphoria is SRS, supporting that allegation with copious citations to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”) Standards of Care. 3 Rosati plausibly alleges that prison officials were 2 For purposes of this appeal, the state conceded that gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition. 3 The state’s argument that the WPATH standards are not fully accepted by the medical community is unavailing because it relies on matters outside the complaint. “When reviewing a motion to dismiss, 6 ROSATI V. IGBINOSO aware of her medical history and need for treatment, but denied the surgery because of a blanket policy against SRS. Indeed, the state acknowledged at oral argument that no California prisoner has ever received SRS. See, e.g., Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1063 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that the “blanket, categorical denial of medically indicated surgery solely on the basis of an administrative policy that one eye is good enough for prison inmates is the paradigm of deliberate indifference” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even absent such a blanket policy, Rosati plausibly alleges her symptoms (including repeated efforts at selfcastration) are so severe that prison officials recklessly disregarded an excessive risk to her health by denying SRS solely on the recommendation of a physician’s assistant with no experience in transgender medicine. See Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 412 (7th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “if the need for specialized expertise . . . would have been obvious to a lay person, then the ‘obdurate refusal’ to engage specialists permits an inference that a medical provider was deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s condition”); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1252–53 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Access to the medical staff has no meaning if the medical staff is not competent to deal with the prisoners’ problems.”), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Although Rosati lacks a medical opinion recommending SRS, she plausibly alleges that this is because the state has we consider only allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice.” Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1212 (internal quotation marks omitted). ROSATI V. IGBINOSO 7 failed to provide her access to a physician competent to evaluate her. See De’lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520, 526 n.4 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Appellees . . . take pains to point out that, absent a doctor’s recommendation, De’lonta cannot show a demonstrable need for sex reassignment surgery. However, we struggle to discern how De’lonta could have possibly satisfied that condition when, as she alleges, Appellees have never allowed her to be evaluated by a [gender dysphoria] specialist in the first place.”). 3. We express no opinion on whether SRS is medically necessary for Rosati or whether prison officials have other legitimate reasons for denying her that treatment. But, like other courts that have considered similar actions, we hold that the allegations in Rosati’s complaint are sufficient to state a claim. See, e.g., Kosilek v. Spencer, 774 F.3d 63, 91 (1st Cir. 2014) (en banc); De’lonta, 708 F.3d at 525–27; Norsworthy v. Beard, 2015 WL 1478264, at *7–9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2015); Soneeya v. Spencer, 851 F. Supp. 2d 228, 245–52 (D. Mass. 2012); see also Fields v. Smith, 653 F.3d 550, 554–59 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirming a district court’s determination that a statute barring hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery for prisoners was unconstitutional). 4 REVERSED AND REMANDED. 4 Rosati also asserted an Equal Protection claim, which the district court dismissed without explanation. That court should address the merits of this claim in the first instance on remand. See Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1212–13 (“To comply with the law of this circuit, the district court was required to explain the deficiencies in Akhtar’s first amended complaint.”).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
