Jasmaine v. Futrelle
| Decision Date | 26 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5:15-CT-3294-FL,5:15-CT-3294-FL |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | JENNIFER ANN JASMAINE f/k/a DUANE LeROY FOX, Plaintiff, v. MR. FUTRELLE, A. DAUGHETY, DR. ELIZABETH BYRD, DR. OWENS, MS. HACKET, and MR. DANILES, Defendants. |
The matter is before the court upon plaintiff's "motion to participate in the WDNC pro se settlement assistance program" (DE 166) and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (DE 128, 143, 151). The motions have been fully briefed and thus the issues are ripe for decision.
On November 12, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, in which she1 alleged that defendants were violating her religious rights and were also deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs. After filing her complaint, plaintiff submitted numerous motions,including: (1) a motion for appointment of counsel (DE 4); (2) a motion requesting discovery (DE 5); and (3) two motions seeking the entry of a preliminary injunction (DE 8, 11).
On December 15, 2015, the court denied plaintiff's motions and conducted a frivolity review (DE 14). At frivolity review, the court dismissed several John Doe defendants. (Id.). However, plaintiff was permitted to proceed with her First Amendment, RLUIPA, and deliberate indifference claims against the remaining defendants. (Id.).
Plaintiff appealed the order denying her appointment of counsel (DE 17, 20). During the pendency of her interlocutory appeal, plaintiff filed two motions to amend her complaint (DE 16, 24) and twice renewed her request for the entry of a preliminary injunction (DE 25, 28).
On March 1, 2016, the court allowed plaintiff's first motion to amend as a matter of course (DE 48). Her second motion to amend was allowed in part and denied in part. (Id.). Specifically, plaintiff was permitted to proceed with an additional deliberate indifference claim against Clarence O. Ellis. (Id.). In all other respects, plaintiff's second motion to amend was denied because her proposed amendments were futile. (Id.). After addressing plaintiff's motions to amend, the court denied plaintiff's motions for the entry of a preliminary injunction. (Id.).
Just a few days later, plaintiff filed her third motion to amend (DE 51). This was soon followed by a fourth motion to amend (DE 60), a renewed motion for the entry of a preliminary injunction (DE 57), and renewed motion for the production of discovery (DE 63). In addition, plaintiff submitted several other documents with the court, all of which either sought further immediate injunctive relief (DE 59, 64, 69, 70) or otherwise elaborated on her claims (DE 58).
The Fourth Circuit dismissed plaintiff's interlocutory appeal on March 28, 2016 for failure to prosecute (DE 66). This court addressed plaintiff's pending motions on May 20, 2016 (DE 89).First, the court noted that plaintiff's allegations were now strewn throughout numerous docket entries. (Id.). In her filings, plaintiff often listed the names of individuals without specifically alleging their personal involvement or describing how their conduct injured her. (Id.). For these reasons, the court determined that plaintiff's allegations no longer satisfied the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.). Accordingly, the court directed plaintiff to file a single amended complaint specifically stating the injury stemming from defendants' actions or inactions and the alleged facts to support her claim. (Id.). After directing plaintiff to particularize her claims, the court denied plaintiff's remaining motions. (Id.).
Before filing her particularized complaint, plaintiff filed a motion seeking miscellaneous injunctive relief (DE 95), which was denied (DE 96). After receiving an extension of time, plaintiff filed a timely particularized complaint (DE 99).
The court reviewed plaintiff's particularized complaint on March 2, 2017 (DE 108). First, the court noted that plaintiff had largely ignored the court's instructions regarding particularization. (Id.). Specifically, plaintiff continued to re-assert previously dismissed claims and a good portion of her claims still failed to comply with Rule 8. (Id.). Nonetheless, the court allowed plaintiff to proceed on: (1) her claim that defendants Futrelle, Owens, Byrd, Daughety, and Daniels were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical need of Gender Identity Disorder ("GID")2; and (2) her claim under RLUIPA and the First Amendment that defendants Hackett and Daniels violated her religious rights. (Id.). The court dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims as frivolous. (Id.). OnMarch 17, 2017, plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal, challenging the dismissal of several defendants, which was subsequently dismissed (DE 109, 135).
Byrd and Owens answered plaintiff's particularized complaint on March 21, 2017 (DE 112, 113). Defendants Daniels, Daughety, Futrelle, and Hackett answered on March 23, 2017 (DE 115). Plaintiff filed another motion requesting the appointment of counsel on April 6, 2017 (DE 117). On April 24, 2017, the court entered a case management order governing discovery and dispositive motions deadlines (DE 119). Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery (DE 123), and also objected to defendants' discovery responses (DE 124, 125). Before the court ruled on her motion to compel, plaintiff filed a renewed request for discovery (DE 138).
Byrd and Owens filed a motion for summary judgment on September 28, 2017 (DE 128). In support of this motion, they filed a memorandum, a statement of material facts, and an appendix, which included: (1) Byrd's and Owens's affidavits; (2) plaintiff's prison movement record; (3) excerpts from the North Carolina Department of Public Safety's ("DPS") policy manual relating to the evaluation and management of gender dysphoria; (4) a memo drafted by a DPS review board discussing plaintiff's case; and (5) plaintiff's medical records. (DE 129, 130, 131, 132, 133).
On October 23, 2017, plaintiff responded to Byrd's and Owens's summary judgment motion (DE 142) and also filed her own cross-motion for summary judgment (DE 143). Plaintiff's cross-motion is not supported by any additional materials. Byrd and Owens responded to plaintiff's cross-motion (DE 145), and plaintiff replied (DE 149). Plaintiff's reply was supported by her own declarations and excerpts of her medical records duplicative of those already provided by Byrd and Owens.
On November 14, 2017, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to add new defendants (DE 146). During the pendency of plaintiff's motion to amend, defendants Daniels, Daughety, Futrelle, and Hackett filed a motion for summary judgment (DE 151). This motion was supported by a memorandum, a statement of material facts, and an appendix, which included: (1) Daniels's affidavit; (2) DPS's policy on Gender Dysphoria; (3) DPS's policy on Wiccan religious observances; (4) Daughety's affidavit; (5) a grievance filed by plaintiff and DPS's response; (6) Hackett's affidavit; (7) plaintiff's request to engage in Wiccan religious activities; (8) an excerpt from a policy manual discussing DPS's standard operating procedure regarding inmate religious services; (9) another policy and procedures manual discussing religious services; (10) Futrelle's affidavit; (11) a memo summarizing the treatment recommendations made for plaintiff after a review panel considered her case; and (12) plaintiff's medical records. (DE 152, 153, 154).
On January 19, 2018 plaintiff filed a belated memorandum in support of her previous cross-motion for summary judgment (DE 158) and responded to Daniels's, Daughety's, Futrelle's, and Hackett's summary judgment motion (DE 159). Neither the memorandum nor the response was supported by any evidence other than plaintiff's allegations.
The court denied all of plaintiff's pending motions on March 14, 2018 (DE 163). In particular, her motion to amend was denied because her proposed amendments were untimely and futile. Even if her amendments had not been futile, the court determined plaintiff was given ample opportunity to amend her claims, and allowing her to amend her claim again at this late stage in the proceedings would be prejudicial to the defendants.
Finally, on May 9, 2018, plaintiff filed her "motion to participate in the WDNC pro se settlement assistance program" (DE 166). Defendants did not respond.
Pursuant to DPS policy, when an inmate alleges or presents with symptoms of gender dysphoria, she undergoes mental and physical evaluations to determine the optimal plan of care. (Owens Aff. (DE 131) ¶ 7). This assessment includes a full physical examination, laboratory testing, psychological testing, and clinical interviews. (Id.). Past medical records are reviewed to assess whether an inmate has previously received hormone therapy or undergone surgical procedures. (Id.).
If a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is supported by this assessment, the inmate is referred to a Gender Dysphoria Review Panel ("GDRP"). (Id.). The GDRP will then develop recommendations to assist the inmate to successfully adapt to a prison environment. (Id.). Potential recommendations include: "referrals to mental health and primary care services, educational resources, possible hormone therapy or other treatment interventions, and the allowance or prohibition of items designed for masculinizing or feminizing effect." (Id.). Furthermore, if an inmate was prescribed hormone therapy prior to incarceration, the GDRP may refer the inmate to an endocrinologist. (Id.). Based on the findings of the endocrinologist, hormone therapy may be continued during incarceration. (Id.). Per DPS policy, health care providers who...
To continue reading
Request your trial