Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 1 of 13
United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17−cv−12255−RGS

CLOSED

Doe v. Massachusetts Department of Correction et al Assigned to: Judge Richard G. Stearns related Case: 1:20−cv−10017−ADB Cause: 42:1218(2) Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Date Terminated: 03/15/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jane Doe

represented by Tiffiney F. Carney Goodwin Procter LLP 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 (202) 346−4000 Email: tcarney@goodwinlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ashley Moore Goodwin Procter LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 617−570−8279 Email: amoore@goodwinlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bennett H. Klein GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders 18 Tremont Street, Suite 950 Boston, MA 02108 617−778−6966 Fax: 617−778−6966 Email: bklein@glad.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth D. Matos Prisoners' Legal Services 10 Winthrop Square, 3rd Flr. Boston, MA 02110 617−482−2773 Email: lmatos@plsma.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Anthony Downs Goodwin Procter, LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 617−570−1929 Fax: 617−523−1231 Email: jdowns@goodwinprocter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer L. Levi Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders 18 Tremont Street, Suite 950 Boston, MA 02108 617−426−−1350 Email: jlevi@glad.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 2 of 13

Joel H. Thompson Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project 6 Everett Street Suite 5107 Cambridge, MA 02138 617−495−3969 Email: jthompson@law.harvard.edu TERMINATED: 11/05/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Louis L. Lobel Goodwin Procter, LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 617−570−1000 Email: llobel@goodwinprocter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Massachusetts Department of Correction
Defendant Sean Medeiros
Defendant James M. O'Gara , Jr.

represented by Jennifer M. Staples Department of Correction 70 Franklin Street Suite 600 Boston, MA 02110 617−727−3300 Email: Jennifer.Staples@massmail.state.ma.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard C. McFarland Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Correction 70 Franklin Street Suite 600 Boston, MA 02110 617−727−3300 X 132 Fax: 617−727−7403 Email: richard.mcfarland@massmail.state.ma.us TERMINATED: 08/27/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer M. Staples (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard C. McFarland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer M. Staples (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard C. McFarland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 3 of 13

Defendant Thomas A. Turco, III
Defendant Stephanie Collins
Amicus National Center for Transgender Equality
Amicus Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition
Amicus Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

represented by Jennifer M. Staples (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard C. McFarland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer M. Staples (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard C. McFarland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin M Barry Quinnipiac University School of Law Legal Clinic 275 Mount Carmel Avenue Hamden, CT 06553 203−582−3238 Email: legalclinic@quinnipiac.edu LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua M. Daniels The Law Office of Joshua M. Daniels P.O. Box 300765 Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 617−942−2190 Email: attorneyjoshdaniels@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin M Barry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua M. Daniels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin M Barry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua M. Daniels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 4 of 13

Amicus Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Amicus Health Law Advocates, Inc.

represented by Kevin M Barry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua M. Daniels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joshua M. Daniels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Intervenor Candace S. Africa TERMINATED: 05/14/2018

represented by Anjali Motgi U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305−0879 Email: anjali.motgi@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Candace S. Africa W63710 MCI − Norfolk PO Box 43 2 Clark Street Norfolk, MA 02056 508−660−5900 PRO SE

Date Filed 11/15/2017
11/15/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Stephanie Collins, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Sean Medeiros, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Thomas A. Turco, III Filing fee: $ 400, receipt number 0101−6887170 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Civil Category Form)(Downs, J.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2017: # 3 Sealed Version of Complaint) (Caruso, Stephanie). (Entered: 11/15/2017)
2 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
3 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order filed by Jane Doe. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Louis L. Lobel on behalf of Jane Doe (Lobel, Louis) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Ashley Moore on behalf of Jane Doe (Moore, Ashley) (Entered: 11/15/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 5 of 13

11/15/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017
11/15/2017
11/15/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017

6 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer L. Levi on behalf of Jane Doe (Levi, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Bennett H. Klein on behalf of Jane Doe (Klein, Bennett) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
8 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal. (McDonagh, Christina) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
9 Summons Issued as to Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Jones, Sherry) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth D. Matos on behalf of Jane Doe (Matos, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Joel H. Thompson on behalf of Jane Doe (Thompson, Joel) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Tiffiney F. Carney Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101−6887999 by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Downs, J.) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
13 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 2 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order

11/15/2017
11/15/2017 11/15/2017 11/17/2017 11/20/2017 11/22/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017

Plaintiff's Counsel is instructed to file proposed protective order. (Caruso, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
14 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 12 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Tiffiney F. Carney. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Caruso, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
15 Proposed Document(s) submitted by Jane Doe. Document received: [Proposed] Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
16 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. PROTECTIVE ORDER(Caruso, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
17 MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Downs, J.) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
18 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ENDORSED ORDER entered granting 17 MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal (Caruso, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard C. McFarland on behalf of Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III (McFarland, Richard) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
20 SUMMONS Returned Executed Massachusetts Department of Correction served on 11/21/2017, answer due 12/12/2017. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
21 SUMMONS Returned Executed Stephanie Collins served on 11/20/2017, answer due 12/11/2017. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
22 SUMMONS Returned Executed Sean Medeiros served on 11/20/2017, answer due 12/11/2017. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 6 of 13

12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/05/2017 12/06/2017
01/05/2018 01/05/2018
01/08/2018 01/09/2018 02/01/2018 02/02/2018
02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/05/2018
02/13/2018
02/13/2018 02/16/2018

23 SUMMONS Returned Executed James M. O'Gara, Jr served on 11/20/2017, answer due 12/11/2017. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed Thomas A. Turco, III served on 11/20/2017, answer due 12/11/2017. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
25 MOTION for Extension of Time to January 5, 2018 to File Answer by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(McFarland, Richard) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
26 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 25 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer for all defendants. Defendants must file their Answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint, no later than 1/5/2018. (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
27 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(McFarland, Richard) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
28 MEMORANDUM in Support re 27 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III. (McFarland, Richard) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
29 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
30 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time until 2/2/2018, to file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
31 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Unopposed) by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
32 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 31 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages − Opposition to Motion to Dismiss not to exceed 23 pages, Motion in Support of Preliminary Injunction not to exceed 33 pages ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include − Leave to file granted on (date of order)− in the caption of the document. (RGS, int2) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
33 Opposition re 27 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Jane Doe. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
35 MEMORANDUM in Support re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of James Aiken, # 2 Affidavit of Randi Ettner, Ph.D., # 3 Affidavit of Jane Doe)(Downs, J.) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
36 NOTICE by Jane Doe re 33 Opposition to Motion, 35 Memorandum in Support of Motion (Notice of Constitutional Question) (Downs, J.) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
37 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 27 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing set for 2/28/2018 02:30 PM in Courtroom 21 before Judge Richard G. Stearns.(RGS, law2) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
38 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(McFarland, Richard) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
39 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 38 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (RGS, law2) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
40 Assented to MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Downs, J.) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 7 of 13

02/16/2018 02/16/2018 02/20/2018 02/20/2018 02/21/2018 02/26/2018 02/26/2018
02/26/2018 02/27/2018
02/27/2018 02/27/2018
02/27/2018 02/27/2018
02/27/2018

41 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 40 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
42 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Jane Doe for February 28, 2018. (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
43 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(McFarland, Richard) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
44 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 43 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (RGS, law2) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
45 Opposition re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(McFarland, Richard) (Entered: 02/21/2018)
46 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of her Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Assented−to Motion for Leave to File Affidavit (Ex. A) Under Seal by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Reply)(Downs, J.) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
47 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 46 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include − Leave to file granted on (date of order)− in the caption of the document. (RGS, law2) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
48 REPLY to Response to 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Filed Under Seal))(Downs, J.) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
50 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Kevin M. Barry Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101−7026320 by National Center for Transgender Equality, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Certification of Kevin M. Barry)(Daniels, Joshua) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
51 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua M. Daniels on behalf of Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, National Center for Transgender Equality (Daniels, Joshua) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
52 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 50 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Added Kevin M. Barry. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
53 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua M. Daniels on behalf of Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, National Center for Transgender Equality, Health Law Advocates, Inc. (Daniels, Joshua) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
54 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Health Law Advocates, Inc., Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, National Center for Transgender Equality. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Brief and Appendices of Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Daniels, Joshua) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
55 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 54 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 8 of 13

02/27/2018 02/28/2018 03/01/2018
03/05/2018 03/08/2018 03/15/2018 03/15/2018 03/16/2018
03/20/2018 03/20/2018 03/21/2018 03/22/2018

CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include − Leave to file granted on (date of order)− in the caption of the document. (RGS, law2) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
56 AMICUS BRIEF filed by Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Health Law Advocates, Inc., Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, National Center for Transgender Equality in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Leave Granted 2/27/2018). (Daniels, Joshua) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
57 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER Entered Certifying Constitutional Question to the Attorney General of the United States Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2403.(RGS, law2) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
58 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Richard G. Stearns: Motion Hearing held on 3/1/2018 re 27 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr., Stephanie Collins, Thomas A. Turco, III, Massachusetts Department of Correction, 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jane Doe. Case called. The Court hears argument from the parties. After hearing the matter was taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. (Court Reporter: James Gibbons at jmsgibbons@yahoo.com.)(Attorneys present: Matos, Downs, Klein, Levi for the plaintiff; McFarland for the defendant) (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
59 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered reserving ruling on 27 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (RGS, law2) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
60 Notice of Supplemental Authorities re 27 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction [in Support of Jane Doe's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33) and Memorandum of Law in Support of Doe's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 35)] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Downs, J.) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
61 Return receipt received for mail sent to US Attorneys Office (Boston) & Attorney General, DOJ (Washington, DC). (D. 57 mailed) (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
62 MOTION for Clarification re 59 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McFarland, Richard) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
63 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 62 Motion for Clarification. The court accepts the DOC's procedure regarding strip searching as a good faith interpretation and application of the court's order. The court also finds that the DOC's proposal that Doe's shower time be scheduled at a time that other inmates are in lock down is an acceptable alternative to paragraph 3 of the order. (RGS, int2) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
64 MOTION for Reconsideration of Order on Defendants' Motion for Clarification by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
65 Second AFFIDAVIT in Support re 66 MOTION for Reconsideration of Order on Defendants' Motion for Clarification of Randi Ettner, PH.D. filed by Jane Doe. (Downs, J.) Modified on 3/21/2018 to change docket entry relationship to corrected motion, dkt. 66 (Pacho, Arnold). (Entered: 03/20/2018)
66 MOTION for Reconsideration (Plaintiff Jane Doe's CORRECTED Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Defendants' Motion for Clarification) by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
67 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 66 Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice. The court remains of the preference, as it indicated in its Order of March 5, 2018, Dkt # 59, that Doe be strip−searched by all female guards whenever feasible. However, as it noted in that same order, the court is cognizant of the fact that the staffing situation at the DOC facility in question and the relevant collective bargaining agreements in place

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 9 of 13

03/28/2018 04/11/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018
04/20/2018
04/20/2018 05/14/2018 05/14/2018
05/25/2018 05/30/2018 05/30/2018
06/14/2018

may not allow for this in all situations. The plaintiff's present arguments on the subject of strip searches are best made when the court moves to an adjudication on the merits, following the closing of the window of the Attorney General's right to intervene, per the court's Order of February 28, 2018, Dkt # 57. (RGS, law2) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
68 NOTICE of Change of Address or Firm Name by J. Anthony Downs as to GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (Downs, J.) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
69 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 29, 2018 to Intervene by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(Motgi, Anjali) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
70 Opposition re 69 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 29, 2018 to Intervene filed by Jane Doe. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
71 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion for Extension of Time. Recognizing that the United States has been confronted with similar issues as those presented by this case, including in the two cases cited by Doe on page 3 of her Opposition, see Dkt # 70, the court, in its discretion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(c), hereby grants the United States an additional thirty (30) days, up to and including May 30, 2018. No further extensions will be granted. (RGS, law2) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
72 Transcript of Hearing on Motions held on February 28, 2018, before Judge Richard G. Stearns. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: James Gibbons at jmsgibbons@yahoo.com Redaction Request due 5/11/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/21/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/19/2018. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
73 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above−captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general−info.htm (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
74 MOTION to Intervene and MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Candace S. Africa. (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, # 2 Exhibits) (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
75 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 74 Motion to Intervene; finding as moot 74 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Intervenor Candace S. Africas Motion to Intervene is DENIED and the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) is dismissed as MOOT. The court, having reviewed Africa's motion, is of the view that her claims do not meet the requirements for permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B). As counsel for Jane Doe apparently informed Africa, her claims are dissimilar in some key respects from those of Doe −− including allegations of different statutory violations not at issue in Doe's case −− and can only be pursued as a separate court action. (RGS, law2) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
76 MOTION for Reconsideration of D. 75 Electronic Order denying 74 Motion to Intervene by Candace S. Africa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Pacho, Arnold) Modified docket text on 5/25/2018 (Pacho, Arnold). (Entered: 05/25/2018)
77 NOTICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of Non−Intervention (Motgi, Anjali) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
78 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 76 Motion for Reconsideration. Intervenor Candace S. Africa does not meet the requirements for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 because no statute confers an unconditional right to intervene in this lawsuit and the outcome of Doe's suit will not "impair or impede," Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), Africa's ability to protect her own interests. She also does not meet the requirements for permissive joinder, for the reasons the court spelled out in its previous order, Dkt #75. Any claims that Africa has must be pursued in the form of a separate lawsuit. (RGS, law2) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
79 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered denying 27 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (RGS, law2) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 10 of 13

07/13/2018 07/13/2018
07/16/2018 07/16/2018 07/24/2018
07/24/2018 08/08/2018
08/08/2018 08/14/2018 08/24/2018 08/24/2018 08/27/2018 09/07/2018
09/07/2018 09/27/2018

80 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits Attached to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction Under Seal by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
81 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Report of Parties' June 28, 2018 Meet & Confer (Renewed) by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Filed Under Seal, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Filed Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Filed Under Seal, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Filed Under Seal, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Filed Under Seal, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Filed Under Seal)(Downs, J.) Modified on 7/16/2018 to seal attachments per Order, dkt. 82. (Pacho, Arnold). (Entered: 07/13/2018)
82 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 80 Assented to Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Attached to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction Under Seal. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
83 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer M. Staples on behalf of Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III (Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
84 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to 08/08/2018 to File Response/Reply as to 81 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Report of Parties' June 28, 2018 Meet & Confer (Renewed) by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
85 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 84 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (RGS, law2) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
86 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to August 24, 2018 to File Response/Reply as to 81 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Report of Parties' June 28, 2018 Meet & Confer (Renewed) by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
87 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 86 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply up to and including August 24, 2018. (RGS, law2) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
88 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
89 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 81 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Report of Parties' June 28, 2018 Meet & Confer (Renewed) by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
90 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 89 Joint Motion for Extension of Time for defendants to file Response/Reply to Jane Doe's renewed motion for preliminary injunction. Responses due by 9/7/2018. (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
91 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 88 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Richard C. McFarland terminated. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
92 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to September 28, 2018 to File Response/Reply as to 81 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Report of Parties' June 28, 2018 Meet & Confer (Renewed) by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
93 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 92 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Dkt. #81 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
94 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to October 23, 2018 to File Response/Reply by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 11 of 13

09/28/2018 10/26/2018
10/26/2018 11/02/2018 11/27/2018
11/27/2018 01/03/2019
01/03/2019

95 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 94 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 81 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Report of Parties' June 28, 2018 Meet & Confer (Renewed) Responses due by 10/23/2018 (Tang, Danni) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
96 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to November 27, 2018 to File Response/Reply as to 81 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Report of Parties' June 28, 2018 Meet & Confer (Renewed) by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
97 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 96 Motion for Extension of Time until November 27, 2018 to file a response to plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction (RGS, law1) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
98 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Joel H. Thompson (Thompson, Joel) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
99 MOTION for Extension of Time to January 4, 2019 to File Response/Reply as to 81 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Report of Parties' June 28, 2018 Meet & Confer (Renewed) by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
100 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 99 Motion for Extension until January 4, 2019 to File a Response to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
101 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to 2/12/2019 to File Response/Reply as to 81 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Report of Parties' June 28, 2018 Meet & Confer (Renewed) by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
102 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered finding as moot 81 Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 101 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply.

01/14/2019 01/14/2019
03/11/2019 03/11/2019 03/14/2019

Because the circumstances have changed since Doe's filing of the Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, a Response to that Motion would no longer be useful. The court, therefore, moots the Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and denies Defendants' Motion for Extension Time. Instead, the court requests that the parties file a status report regarding what issues are outstanding no later than January 14, 2019. Thereafter, the court will reinstate a briefing schedule. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
103 STATUS REPORT in Response to the Court's Order of January 3, 2019 by Jane Doe. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
104 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Per the parties' joint status report (Dkt # 103), the court requests that they file an updated status report by March 11, 2019. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
105 Assented to MOTION to Seal the Status Report by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
106 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 105 Motion for Leave to File the Status Report under Seal. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
108 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The sole remaining request in the Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction was for Doe to be "transfer[ed] to an appropriate women's correctional facility." Dkt # 81 at 1. In September of 2018, the Department of Correction did just that, transferring Doe to MCI−Framingham. In the first Joint Status Report, the parties acknowledged that Doe's request "is now moot." Dkt # 103 at 2. However, Doe now seeks to inject new claims that were never previously raised in this lengthy litigation. See Dkt # 107. Accordingly, the court denies Doe's request to proceed with discovery. The clerk will close the case. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 12 of 13

03/15/2019 03/25/2019 04/01/2019 04/03/2019 04/03/2019 04/03/2019 04/08/2019
04/19/2019 04/22/2019 05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/10/2019
05/22/2019 05/22/2019

109 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
110 MOTION for Reconsideration re 109 Order Dismissing Case, 108 Order,, by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
111 Opposition re 110 MOTION for Reconsideration re 109 Order Dismissing Case, 108 Order,, filed by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III. (Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
112 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Reply)(Downs, J.) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
113 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 112 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Counsel should include − Leave to file granted on April 3, 2019 − in the caption of the document. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
114 REPLY to Response to 110 MOTION for Reconsideration re 109 Order Dismissing Case, 108 Order,, filed by Jane Doe. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
115 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 110 Motion for Reconsideration. Doe moves for the court to reconsider and reverse its March 14, 2019 dismissal of the case primarily because several issues purportedly remain that "fall within the scope of the originally pleaded claims." Dkt # 110. The court, however, is satisfied with its order of dismissal. As the court previously noted, all of the relief Doe sought in her Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been provided, including the principal request to be transferred to a women's prison. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
116 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to May 6, 2019 to File a Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 04/19/2019)
117 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 116 Assented to Motion for Extension of Time to May 6, 2019 to File a Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
118 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to May 10, 2019 to to File A Motion For Costs and Attorney's Fees by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
119 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 118 Motion for Extension of Time until May 10, 2019 to File a Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
120 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, # 2 Affidavit of J. Anthony Downs in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, # 3 Exhibit A to Affidavit of J. Anthony Downs in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, # 4 Exhibit B to Affidavit of J. Anthony Downs in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, # 5 Affidavit of Jennifer Levi, # 6 Exhibit A to Affidavit of Jennifer Levi, # 7 Exhibit B to Affidavit of Jennifer Levi, # 8 Affidavit of Elizabeth Matos, # 9 Exhibit A of Affidavit of Elizabeth Matos, # 10 Exhibit B of Affidavit of Elizabeth Matos, # 11 Exhibit C to Affidavit of Elizabeth Matos)(Downs, J.) (Attachment 4 replaced on 5/14/2019) (Pacho, Arnold). (Attachment 9 replaced on 5/14/2019) (Pacho, Arnold). (Attachment 10 replaced on 5/14/2019) (Pacho, Arnold). (Attachment 11 replaced on 5/14/2019) (Pacho, Arnold). Modified on 5/14/2019 to attach redacted versions of exhibits (Pacho, Arnold). (Entered: 05/10/2019)
121 MOTION for Extension of Time to 6/18/2019 to File Response/Reply as to 120 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/22/2019)
122 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 121 Motion for Extension of Time until June 18, 2019 to Respond to Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 05/22/2019)

Case: 1:17-cv-12255 As of: 02/17/2020 12:10 PM EST 13 of 13

06/18/2019 06/18/2019
06/18/2019 06/21/2019 06/21/2019 07/01/2019 07/08/2019

123 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III.(Staples, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
124 Opposition re 120 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Stephanie Collins, Massachusetts Department of Correction, Sean Medeiros, James M. O'Gara, Jr, Thomas A. Turco, III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Spreadsheet of Objections)(Staples, Jennifer) (Attachment 1 replaced on 7/9/2019) (Pacho, Arnold). Modified on 7/9/2019 to replace exhibit with redacted version (Pacho, Arnold). (Entered: 06/18/2019)
125 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 123 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
126 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses by Jane Doe.(Downs, J.) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
127 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 126 Motion for Leave to File Reply by July 1, 2019. Counsel should include − Leave to file granted on (date of order) − in the caption of the document. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
128 REPLY to Response to 120 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Jane Doe. (Downs, J.) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
129 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting in part 120 Motion for Attorney Fees. The court awards Doe $46,297.50 in attorneys fees and $11,740.94 in litigation expenses. (RGS, law1) (Entered: 07/08/2019)

 
 Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; THOMAS A. TURCO III; SEAN MEDEIROS; JAMES M. O’GARA JR.; and STEPHANIE COLLINS,

Civil Action No. 17-12255

Defendants.

COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Jane Doe is a transgender woman incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution located in Norfolk (“MCI-Norfolk”). Jane Doe brings this lawsuit against Defendants the Massachusetts Department of Correction (“DOC”); Commissioner Thomas A. Turco III; MCI-Norfolk Superintendent Sean Medeiros; Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator James M. O’Gara Jr.; and Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Clinical Services Stephanie Collins. 2. Jane Doe suffers from Gender Dysphoria, a rare but serious medical condition and disability. 3. The standard of care for treatment of Gender Dysphoria, established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), the American Medical Association (“AMA”), the American Psychological Association (“APA”), and other major medical and mental health professional organizations, is to live consistently with one’s gender identity through counseling, hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery, and the social and legal transition to the sex associated with a person’s gender identity.

ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 2 of 24
4. Jane Doe has long ago undergone the process of gender transition and is a woman.
5. To avoid debilitating psychological dysfunction and distress, Jane Doe must be able to live consistently with her female gender identity, like other women. Rather than support Jane Doe’s female identity, and in direct contravention of established treatment recommendations, Defendants have undermined Jane Doe’s ability to live as a woman, have punished her for attempting to do so, and have refused to provide reasonable accommodations for her diagnosed condition. They have traumatized her by forcing her to live in a male correctional facility, subjecting her to strip searches by male correctional officers, forcing her to shower in view of male prisoners who inappropriately comment on her female breast development and otherwise harass her, and refusing to address or refer to her using female pronouns.
6. In short, Jane Doe is a woman being forced to eat, sleep, shower, and live with men and without appropriate, reasonable accommodations that she needs for treatment of her Gender Dysphoria.
7. Jane Doe therefore brings claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.; the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the equality and due process guarantees secured by Part 1, Articles I and VII, among others, of the Massachusetts Constitution; and Articles 106 and 114 of the Massachusetts Constitution. Jane Doe seeks injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and all other appropriate relief.
JURISDICTION 8. This Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
2
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 3 of 24
1343, and 1367. Many of Jane Doe’s claims arise under federal law, including the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.; the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S. § 1391. PARTIES
10. Jane Doe is incarcerated at MCI-Norfolk. Jane Doe has been held at this facility since October 31, 2016.
11. Defendant DOC is a department of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its central headquarters is located at 50 Maple Street, Suite 3, Milford, MA 01757.
12. Defendant DOC is a state government agency and therefore a public entity within the meaning of the ADA.
13. Defendant DOC at all relevant times was a recipient of federal financial assistance and therefore subject to the Rehabilitation Act.
14. Defendant Thomas Turco was at all relevant times the Commissioner of the DOC and responsible for the overall administration of DOC correctional facilities, including MCINorfolk, as well as the training of all DOC correctional officers. This suit is brought against Defendant Turco in his official capacity.
15. Defendant Sean Medeiros at all relevant times was the Superintendent of MCINorfolk and responsible for the day-to-day administration of MCI-Norfolk. This suit is brought against Defendant Medeiros in his official capacity.
16. Defendant James M. O’Gara Jr. at all relevant times was the ADA Coordinator and responsible for reviewing and rendering decisions on appeals arising from the denial of a request for reasonable accommodations. This suit is brought against Defendant O’Gara in his official capacity.
3
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 4 of 24
17. Defendant Stephanie Collins at all relevant times was the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Clinical Services and responsible for the provision of health services to all DOC prisoners. This suit is brought against Defendant Collins in her official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Gender Dysphoria & Treatment 18. Gender Dysphoria, as defined by the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM-V”), is a medical condition in which there is a marked incongruence between one’s experienced or expressed gender and one’s assigned sex at birth, lasting for at least 6 months and manifested through at least two of the following symptoms: a. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. b. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender. c. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender. d. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender). e. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender). f. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender). 19. A person with Gender Dysphoria experiences clinical distress from having a
4
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 5 of 24
gender identity – an internalized sense of being male or female – that is different than his or her assigned sex and gender at birth.
20. Gender Dysphoria is associated with high levels of stigmatization, discrimination, and victimization. The isolation of and discrimination experienced by someone with Gender Dysphoria often leads to negative self-esteem, increased risk of mental disorders, and comorbidity, i.e., suffering from another disease or disorder.
21. Individuals suffering from Gender Dysphoria often experience severe psychological harm and suffering, including anxiety, depression, and/or thoughts of suicide.
22. Gender Dysphoria is, however, highly treatable. 23. Treatment protocol for Gender Dysphoria, as recommended by the APA, includes “counseling, cross-sex hormones, gender reassignment surgery, and social and legal transition to the desired gender.” Going through a “gender transition” or “transition” is the medical process of changing one’s body from that typically associated with his or her assigned sex at the time of birth (in Jane Doe’s case – male) to that typically associated with the person’s gender identification (in Jane Doe’s case – female).
Jane Doe’s Personal History and Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis 24. Jane Doe was born on December 25, 1964, in Puerto Rico. Her friends and family know her by her chosen female name, call her by that name, and have done so since she was a young child. 25. Although she was assigned male at birth, Jane Doe understood herself to be female at a very young age. Being treated as a boy, she experienced serious emotional and mental health issues. When she was a teenager, she saw a doctor about these issues and explained the incongruity that she felt being forced to live as a boy but feeling very much like a
5
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 6 of 24
girl. 26. Her doctor ultimately diagnosed Jane Doe with Gender Identity Disorder, or
transsexualism. In 2013, the DSM-V replaced Gender Identity Disorder with Gender Dysphoria. 27. For her care and treatment, her doctor recommended that she undergo “gender
transition.” As part of that transition, Jane Doe went through the process of social role transition and medical transition, including hormone therapy – which she has received for nearly four decades.
28. As a result of this gender transition and apart from her mistreatment by DOC, Jane Doe is a woman and, as such, had been able to live fully and consistently with her female identity prior to her DOC incarceration.
29. Indeed, Jane Doe’s status as a woman is acknowledged and affirmed by her Massachusetts Identification Card, and Jane Doe is now in the process of obtaining a courtissued judgment recognizing her legal name change to a chosen female name.
Jane Doe’s Experience as a DOC Prisoner 30. Jane Doe entered the custody of the DOC at MCI-Cedar Junction in 2016 and was subsequently transferred to MCI-Norfolk. She is currently serving a three to four year sentence for a nonviolent drug offense. She is due to be released in November 2019 without discounting for her good time in prison. 31. Upon entering the DOC in 2016, Jane Doe told the DOC correctional officers that she is a woman. Jane Doe recalls conveying during her screening interview that she is a woman and needs to be treated accordingly. She also asked to be called by her chosen female name instead of the male name she was given at birth. 32. During her time at MCI-Norfolk, Jane Doe was initially assigned to a dormitory
6
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 7 of 24
setting, forced to live, sleep, shower and use the bathroom with dozens of men. It was only after outside advocacy that Jane Doe was moved to a single cell.
33. Jane Doe suffers from profound harm to her mental and physical health, as any woman would, because so many male DOC staff and officers and so many DOC prisoners can see her naked. During strip searches, which are always done by male correctional officers, DOC staff routinely grope her breasts, causing her to feel ashamed and violated, and further exacerbating her disorder.
34. A 5-day lockdown at MCI-Norfolk months ago illustrates just how horrific DOC strip searches can be for a female prisoner. On or around June 19, 2017, DOC male staff members approached Jane Doe’s cell and told her to strip. Jane Doe responded that she would not take off her bra or underwear in front of male DOC staff. DOC staff asked if she was diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria. She responded that she was, so the staff called their captain to her cell. The captain told Jane Doe that she would be placed in solitary confinement if she did not fully strip. Distraught, and believing that she could not psychologically handle being held in solitary confinement, Jane Doe, sobbing, proceeded to strip. Three DOC staff members – the two male correctional officers and their male captain – watched as she did so. Jane Doe was forced to strip in front of her open cell door, which is on the third floor, thereby exposing her naked body to at least a dozen male prisoners who gawked from outside, yelling taunts like “You have some big, nice boobies!” and “I would like to see you spread like that in my room!” Jane Doe was forced to stand, cuffed and naked, for around 30 minutes before she was allowed to get dressed.
35. Showering is another source of trauma for Jane Doe. When Jane Doe showers, male prisoners crowd into the bathroom excitedly. Jane Doe is forced to shower in terror of
7
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 8 of 24
being attacked by these men. She is particularly fearful of men serving life sentences, because she believes they view her as the only woman with whom they will ever have the opportunity to have contact and thus target her.
36. After one particularly traumatizing shower incident, during which Jane Doe had to shower while men gawked at her from the tier above her while she showered, Jane Doe began having difficulty sleeping. She was able to sleep only three hours each night due to racing thoughts, sadness, anxiety and distress caused by this incident.
37. While she was housed in a different unit, Unit 3-2, Jane Doe was given separate shower time with other transgender prisoners. She is no longer afforded this reasonable accommodation.
38. Jane Doe discussed these incidents and her corresponding fear of showering under unsafe conditions with DOC staff, who did nothing. In response, Jane Doe’s mental health counselors repeatedly admonished her to be “proactive” and “advocate for herself.”
39. On more than one occasion, even when a private shower has been available and designated for transgender women, Defendants have denied Jane Doe the right to use this shower and forced her to shower along with male prisoners while these prisoners snickered and made demeaning, hurtful, and denigrating comments about her.
40. DOC provides what is known as a “PREA curtain” for transgender prisoners to use during shower time. The opaque section of the curtain, however, does not line up with Jane Doe’s body, so male prisoners can see most of her naked body, including her breasts. And, because some cells in her current housing unit do not have bathrooms, many DOC prisoners use the bathrooms next to the shower area, allowing even more of them to see her naked during this time. Simply put, no curtain is sufficient to protect her privacy or safety while showering as long
8
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 9 of 24
as men have access to the connected facility, as they regularly do. 41. Jane Doe’s inability to shower without the presence of men has exacerbated her
Gender Dysphoria and disrupted her treatment. 42. Although some DOC correctional officers refer to Jane Doe as female and
properly use her name chosen female name, most do not. Indeed, certain DOC correctional officers make a point of asserting that Jane Doe’s anatomy is different than any other woman and repeatedly state that she is still a man – for no other reason than to harass and upset her. They make comments to Jane Doe and other transgender prisoners, calling them “chicks with dicks” and “wannabe women.”
43. Corrections Officer Duszak, for example, regularly refers to Jane Doe as a Mister, and says things like, “Do you have a penis? Then you’re still a man,” knowing that doing so harasses and demeans Jane Doe.
44. Jane Doe is also regularly verbally harassed and physically threatened by other DOC prisoners because she has Gender Dysphoria. DOC prisoners have entered her cell to deride her and to try to physically force themselves on her, and prisoners often harass her sexually in the bathrooms, with the knowledge and tacit approval of DOC staff. To avoid the threats and harassment, Jane Doe often skips meals at the food hall and avoids group activities. She is often afraid to leave her cell for fear of harassment and violence from DOC prisoners, staff, and correctional officers. In short, her daily life activities are significantly impaired by Defendants’ actions and inactions.
Jane Doe’s Gender Dysphoria Treatment Plan 45. Jane Doe was seen by DOC’s contracted health care providers and diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria.
9
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 10 of 24
46. Upon her most recent admission to the DOC in 2016, Jane Doe explained her history of outpatient treatment for Gender Dysphoria to DOC medical staff. Specifically, during Jane Doe’s Initial Mental Health Appraisal, conducted by Stephanie Wong, MA, on November 3, 2016, Jane Doe reported receiving treatment for Gender Dysphoria both during prior incarcerations as well as in the free world, at River Valley Counseling Center and Caring Health Center in Springfield, Massachusetts.
47. During her Mental Health Comprehensive Evaluation on November 14, 2016, Jane Doe explained to Elizabeth Samson, LMHC, that she started wearing girls’ clothing at school at a young age and began using her chosen female name and taking hormones in her teenage years.
48. DOC medical staff obtained records of Jane Doe’s mental health history to substantiate her claims and inform her treatment. After reviewing Jane Doe’s Appraisal, Evaluation, and community reports, DOC medical staff agreed on her GD diagnosis and developed an Initial Treatment Plan on December 12, 2016, to provide continuous treatment for her diagnosis.
49. Jane Doe’s initial Treatment Plan indicates that her “challenges” include “difficulties coping with gender dysphoria in a correctional setting.” Her “Target Symptoms” are “[l]iving and coping as a transgender female within the Department of Correction” and “gender dysphoria . . . which has been exacerbated while living in a prison setting.” (emphasis added).
50. Jane Doe’s Treatment Plan states her long-term treatment goal to be to “learn effective coping skills to manage dysphoria associated with transgender identity.” Her shortterm goals are to “[a]ppropriately advocate for [her]self” and to “obtain and use female canteen
10
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 11 of 24
items” available at the facility. 51. Jane Doe’s Treatment Plan also calls for her to have monthly one-on-one sessions
with her Primary Care Clinician (“PCC”), for her treatment to be discussed at monthly Gender Dysphoria Supervision Committee meetings, and for her treatment plan to be reviewed every six months.
52. After six months, Jane Doe’s initial Treatment Plan was reviewed. Jane Doe’s “Treatment Plan Review,” dated June 1, 2017, reasserts the same challenges, symptoms, and treatment goals as are stated in her initial Treatment Plan.
53. The Treatment Plan Review includes Jane Doe’s “response” to her treatment. Specifically, the Review states that Jane Doe attended all scheduled treatment sessions and engaged appropriately with her PCC, that she continued to effectively advocate for herself within the DOC, and that she utilized coping skills to help manage her incarceration. In other words, Jane Doe is doing everything that she can according to her Treatment Plan to survive in an untenable and abusive situation.
54. The Treatment Plan, however, falls woefully short of requiring the necessary accommodations Jane Doe needs to treat Gender Dysphoria. Moreover, because the DOC has failed to implement her Treatment Plan – as insufficient as it is – and Defendants have continued their abuse and harassment, Jane Doe still experiences severe symptoms of Gender Dysphoria, i.e. anxiety, depression, and distress, all of which impair her major life activities at MCI-Norfolk.
Jane Doe’s Requests for Accommodations for Her Disability 55. Jane Doe requested a number of accommodations in order to prevent her from being discriminated against on the basis of her Gender Dysphoria diagnosis, to provide her with equal access to the programs and services of the DOC, and to ensure that she can meet the single
11
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 12 of 24
most important treatment goal that she be supported and recognized as a woman. 56. Jane Doe requested that Defendants fully respect and treat her as a woman. 57. Jane Doe has requested that she be granted access to preventative healthcare
including mammograms. 58. Jane Doe has requested that DOC employees refer to her using the correct chosen
female name and pronouns, including “she,” “her,” and “hers” instead of “he,” “him,” and “his.” 59. Jane Doe has requested that she be placed in DOC’s female corrections facility
known as MCI-Framingham. 60. In the interim, Jane Doe has requested that Defendants allow only female
correctional officers to perform strip searches on her; provide her with a separate shower time without the presence of men; and train DOC staff on how to appropriately accommodate, treat, and communicate with individuals with Gender Dysphoria.
Defendants’ Failure to Accommodate Jane Doe’s Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis 61. Defendants have denied Jane Doe’s reasonable requests for accommodation. 62. She has made a classification request to be transferred to MCI-Framingham. Kristie Ladouceur, who handles transfers at MCI-Norfolk, told Jane Doe that she could not be transferred to the women’s prison until she has genital surgery. Defendants, however, have yet to allow her to receive this surgery. By setting forth genital surgery as a precondition but refusing to provide it, Defendants have created an insurmountable barrier to Jane Doe’s needed transfer. 63. That said, while Jane Doe’s treatment plan should include genital reconstructive surgery, it is not a precondition to her being recognized as a woman based on her Gender Dysphoria diagnosis.
12
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 13 of 24
64. Defendants have not met Jane Doe’s reasonable request regarding training for DOC staff on how to accommodate, treat, and communicate with individuals with Gender Dysphoria. DOC staff continue to be inadequately trained on how to deal with prisoners with Gender Dysphoria, and inadequately supervised in their dealings with Jane Doe, exacerbating many of the issues that she faces daily.
65. Defendants have not met Jane Doe’s reasonable request that she be addressed using her female name and female pronouns. Many DOC correctional officers continue to call her by the wrong name and masculine pronouns, exacerbating Jane Doe’s disorder.
66. Defendants have not met Jane Doe’s reasonable request that strip searches of her be conducted only by female DOC correctional officers, and not male DOC correctional officers. She is a woman who is being routinely strip searched by male DOC correctional officers. The impact on her is scarring, humiliating, demeaning, and physically and emotionally harmful.
67. Defendants have not met Jane Doe’s reasonable request regarding a separate showering time and appropriate showering curtain. Instead, DOC prison staff often force Jane Doe to shower at the same time, and in the same bathroom, as male prisoners.
68. Defendants also often force Jane Doe to change and use the toilet in front of male staff and prisoners. When she attempts to cover the window of her cell door to achieve privacy, Defendants threaten her with disciplinary tickets.
69. Defendants have not met Jane Doe’s reasonable request regarding mammograms. Jane Doe was denied access to mammograms due to discrimination. Defendants told her that if she wants mammograms, she should stop taking estrogen so she would not need mammograms. This reasoning is medically unreasonable and a pretext for discrimination against people with Gender Dysphoria and based on discriminatory stereotypes of transgender people.
13
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 14 of 24
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT ONE
(ADA – Discrimination/Failure to Accommodate) 70. Jane Doe incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of her Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 71. Defendants violated the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., by discriminating against Jane Doe on the basis of her disability. The discrimination includes:
a. Refusing to transfer Jane Doe to MCI-Framingham, a women’s correctional facility. Defendants have refused the transfer even though Jane Doe is a woman and has a female gender identity. Jane Doe has had no disciplinary problems at MCI-Norfolk and does not present a security risk;
b. Refusing to train DOC staff on how to appropriately accommodate, treat, and communicate with individuals with Gender Dysphoria;
c. Refusing to use her chosen female name when addressing or referring to Jane Doe;
d. Refusing to use female pronouns when addressing or referring to Jane Doe;
e. Allowing male correctional officers to perform strip searches on Jane Doe, knowing that Jane Doe is a woman, has a female gender identity, has undergone a gender transition, identifies and lives as a woman, and feels fearful and sexually violated when touched by male correctional officers;
f. Forcing her to shower at the same time as male prisoners, with an inadequate shower curtain, knowing that Jane Doe is a woman, identifies
14
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 15 of 24
as a woman and experiences great discomfort in showering with men, and that Jane Doe had been and would be subjected to humiliating, terrifying and dangerous circumstances; and g. Denying her access to preventative healthcare, including mammograms. 72. Defendants violated the ADA by failing to provide her with the aforementioned reasonable accommodations. 73. None of Jane Doe’s requested accommodations “would materially impair the safe and efficient operation of the program, present a safety hazard to the individual inmate or staff, threaten the security of the correctional institution/facility, or would otherwise cause undue hardship in the operation of the institution/facility.” 103 DOC 207.01. 74. Nor would any of Jane Doe’s requested accommodations “fundamentally alter the nature of [any] service, program, or activity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). 75. Defendants’ actions and failure to accommodate Jane Doe’s attempts to alleviate the stresses caused by her Gender Dysphoria have caused Jane Doe to suffer from depression, anxiety, and have impaired Jane Doe’s ability to participate in basic life activities.
COUNT TWO (Rehabilitation Act – Discrimination/Failure to Accommodate) 76. Jane Doe incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of her Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 77. Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. by discriminating against Jane Doe on the basis of her disability. 78. Defendants’ discriminatory actions and failure to accommodate Jane Doe’s attempts to alleviate the stresses caused by her Gender Dysphoria have caused Jane Doe to suffer from depression, anxiety, and have impaired Jane Doe’s ability to participate in basic life
15
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 16 of 24
activities. Defendants’ acts in violation of the Rehabilitation Act include: a. Refusing to transfer Jane Doe to MCI-Framingham, a women’s correctional facility. Defendants have refused the transfer even though Jane Doe is a woman and has a female gender identity. Jane Doe has had no disciplinary problems at MCI-Norfolk and does not present a security risk; b. Refusing to train DOC staff on how to appropriately accommodate, treat, and communicate with individuals with Gender Dysphoria; c. Refusing to use her chosen female name when addressing or referring to Jane Doe; d. Refusing to use female pronouns when addressing or referring to Jane Doe; e. Allowing male correctional officers to perform strip searches on Jane Doe, knowing that Jane Doe is a woman, has a female gender identity, has undergone a gender transition, identifies and lives as a woman, and feels fearful and sexually violated when being intimately touched by male correctional officers; f. Forcing her to shower at the same time as male prisoners, with an inadequate shower curtain, knowing that Jane Doe is a woman, has a female gender identity, has undergone a gender transition, identifies and lives as a woman, and that Jane Doe had been and would be subjected to humiliating, terrifying and dangerous circumstances; and g. Denying her access to preventative healthcare, including mammograms.
79. Defendants’ actions and failure to accommodate Jane Doe’s attempts to alleviate the stresses caused by her Gender Dysphoria have caused Jane Doe to suffer from depression,
16
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 17 of 24
anxiety, and have impaired Jane Doe’s ability to participate in basic life activities. COUNT THREE
(Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – Equal Protection Clause) 80. Jane Doe incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of her Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 81. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have violated Jane Doe’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by impermissibly discriminating against Jane Doe on the basis of her sex, gender identity, transgender status, and disability. 82. Defendants’ actions have caused Jane Doe to suffer from depression, anxiety, and have impaired Jane Doe’s ability to participate in basic life activities.
COUNT FOUR (Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – Due Process Clause) 83. Jane Doe incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of her Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 84. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state government from depriving individuals of their property or liberty interests without due process of law. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires, at a minimum, that government action have some rational basis. Defendants’ placement of Jane Doe in a men’s correctional facility and disregard of the fact that she is a woman and has a female gender identity is irrational. Defendants’ treatment of Jane Doe also impermissibly burdens Jane Doe’s fundamental rights to autonomy and privacy, including her right to live as a woman and consistent with her female gender identity. By disregarding Jane Doe’s status as a woman and by disregarding her female gender identity as set forth above, Defendants have violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 85. Defendants’ actions have caused Jane Doe to suffer from depression, anxiety, and
17
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 18 of 24
have impaired Jane Doe’s ability to participate in basic life activities. COUNT FIVE
(Massachusetts Constitution - Pt. 1, Articles I and VII, among others) 86. Jane Doe incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of her Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 87. Defendants’ placement of Jane Doe in a men’s correctional facility and disregard of the fact that she is a woman and has a female gender identity is in violation of Jane Doe’s rights, including her Due Process Rights, under the Declaration of Rights, Articles I and VII, among others, of the Massachusetts Constitution. 88. Defendants’ actions have caused Jane Doe to suffer from depression, anxiety, and have impaired Jane Doe’s ability to participate in basic life activities.
COUNT SIX (Massachusetts Constitution – Article 106) 89. Jane Doe incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of her Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 90. Defendants violated Article 106 of the Massachusetts Constitution by discriminating against Jane Doe on the basis of her transgender status, her gender identity and her sex. Specific violations include: a. Refusing to transfer Jane Doe to MCI-Framingham, a women’s correctional facility, even though Jane Doe is a woman and has a female gender identity. Jane Doe has had no disciplinary problems at MCI-Norfolk and does not present a security risk; b. Refusing to train DOC staff on how to appropriately accommodate, treat, and communicate with individuals with Gender Dysphoria; c. Refusing to use her chosen female name when addressing or referring to Jane
18
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 19 of 24
Doe; d. Refusing to use female pronouns when addressing or referring to Jane Doe; e. Allowing male correctional officers to perform strip searches on Jane Doe,
knowing that Jane Doe is a woman, has a female gender identity, has undergone a gender transition, identifies and lives as a woman, and feels fearful and sexually violated when being intimately touched by male correctional officers; f. Forcing her to shower at the same time as male prisoners, with an inadequate shower curtain, knowing that Jane Doe is a woman, has a female gender identity, has undergone a gender transition, identifies and lives as a woman and experiences great discomfort in showering with men, and that Jane Doe had been and would be subjected to humiliating, terrifying and dangerous circumstances; and g. Denying her access to preventative healthcare, including mammograms. 91. Defendants’ actions and failure to accommodate Jane Doe’s attempts to alleviate the stresses caused by her Gender Dysphoria have caused Jane Doe to suffer from depression, anxiety, and have impaired Jane Doe’s ability to participate in basic life activities.
COUNT SEVEN (Massachusetts Constitution – Article 114) 92. Jane Doe incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of her Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 93. Defendants violated Article 114 of the Massachusetts Constitution by discriminating against Jane Doe on the basis of her gender identity and her disability, Gender Dysphoria. Specific violations include:
19
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 20 of 24
a. Refusing to transfer Jane Doe to MCI-Framingham, a women’s correctional facility. Defendants have refused the transfer even though Jane Doe’s gender identity is female, she has undergone a gender transition, and all of her acquaintances outside of MCI-Norfolk recognize and treat Jane Doe as a woman. Jane Doe has had no disciplinary problems at MCI-Norfolk and does not present a security risk;
b. Refusing to train DOC staff on how to appropriately accommodate, treat, and communicate with individuals with Gender Dysphoria;
c. Refusing to use her chosen female name when addressing or referring to Jane Doe;
d. Refusing to use female pronouns when addressing or referring to Jane Doe; e. Allowing male correctional officers to perform strip searches on Jane Doe,
knowing that Jane Doe has a female gender identity, has undergone a gender transition, identifies and lives as a woman and feels fearful and sexually violated when being intimately touched by male correctional officers; f. Forcing her to shower at the same time as male prisoners, with an inadequate shower curtain, knowing that Ms. has a female gender identity, has undergone a gender transition, identifies and lives as a woman and experiences great discomfort in showering with men, and that Jane Doe had been and would be subjected to humiliating, terrifying and dangerous circumstances; and g. Denying her access to preventative healthcare, including mammograms. 94. Defendants’ actions and failure to accommodate Jane Doe’s attempts to alleviate the stresses caused by her Gender Dysphoria have caused Jane Doe to suffer from depression,
20
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 21 of 24
anxiety, and have impaired Jane Doe’s ability to participate in basic life activities. COUNT EIGHT
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of Civil Rights) 95. Jane Doe incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of her Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 96. Defendants are “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 who acted “under the color of state law” and deprived Jane Doe of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. Specific violations include:
a. Refusing to transfer Jane Doe to MCI-Framingham, a women’s correctional facility. Defendants have refused the transfer even though Jane Doe’s gender identity is female, she has undergone a gender transition, and all of her acquaintances outside of MCI-Norfolk recognize and treat Jane Doe as a woman. Jane Doe has had no disciplinary problems at MCI-Norfolk and does not present a security risk;
b. Refusing to train DOC staff on how to appropriately accommodate, treat, and communicate with individuals with Gender Dysphoria;
c. Refusing to use her chosen female name when addressing or referring to Jane Doe;
d. Refusing to use female pronouns when addressing or referring to Jane Doe; e. Allowing male correctional officers to perform strip searches on Jane Doe,
knowing that Jane Doe has a female gender identity, has undergone a gender transition, identifies and lives as a woman and feels fearful and sexually violated when being intimately touched by male correctional officers; f. Forcing her to shower at the same time as male prisoners, with an inadequate
21
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 22 of 24
shower curtain, knowing that Ms. has a female gender identity, has undergone a gender transition, identifies and lives as a woman and experiences great discomfort in showering with men, and that Jane Doe had been and would be subjected to humiliating, terrifying and dangerous circumstances; and g. Denying her access to preventative healthcare, including mammograms. 97. Defendants actions have caused Jane Doe to suffer from depression, anxiety, and have impaired Jane Doe’s ability to participate in basic life activities.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Jane Doe respectfully prays that this Court: A. Enter judgment in favor of Jane Doe against Defendants on each of the counts in this complaint; B. Issue injunctive relief against Defendants ordering Defendants not to discriminate against Jane Doe on the basis of her transgender status, her gender identity, her sex, and/or her disability, including but not limited to ordering them to: (1) Treat Jane Doe the same as other women held by the DOC; (2) Transfer Jane Doe to MCI-Framingham; (3) Train all DOC staff on how to appropriately accommodate, treat and
communicate with individuals with Gender Dysphoria; (4) Discipline all DOC staff who fail to appropriately accommodate, treat and
communicate with individuals with Gender Dysphoria; (5) Refer to Jane Doe by her chosen female name; (6) Use only female pronouns when speaking to or about Jane Doe; (7) Only allow strip searches of Jane Doe to be conducted by female
correctional officers, never male correctional officers; 22
ACTIVE/93216369.3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 23 of 24

(8) Provide Jane Doe a separate shower time without the presence of men and with a shower curtain that adequately covers her; and
(9) Provide Jane Doe access to preventative healthcare, including mammograms.
C. Award Jane Doe her reasonable costs and expenses of this action; D. Award Jane Doe’s counsel reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
any other applicable law; and E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court considers just and proper.

ACTIVE/93216369.3

Respectfully submitted,
Jane Doe
By her attorneys,
/s/ J. Anthony Downs________ J. Anthony Downs (BBO# 552839) Tiffiney F. Carney (pro hac vice pending) Louis L. Lobel (BBO# 693292) Ashley E. Moore (BBO# 694731) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02210 Tel.: +1 617 570 1000 E-mail: jdowns@goodwinlaw.com tcarney@goodwinlaw.com llobel@goodwinlaw.com amoore@goodwinlaw.com
Jennifer Levi (BBO# 562298) Bennett Klein (BBO# 550702) GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders 30 Winter Street, STE 800 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Tel.: +1 617 426 1350
23

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 24 of 24

Dated: November 15, 2017

Email: jlevi@glad.org bklein@glad.org
Elizabeth Matos (BBO# 671505) Joel Thompson (BBO# 662164) Prisoners’ Legal Services 10 Winthrop Square, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Tel.: +1 617 482 6383 E-mail: lmatos@plsma.org jthompson@plsma.org

24
ACTIVE/93216369.3

 
 Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 59 Filed 03/05/18 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-12255-RGS JANE DOE v.
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RESERVING RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION March 5, 2018
STEARNS, D.J. Plaintiff Jane Doe is a transgender woman, currently housed in a men’s
prison operated by the defendants, Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC), and various state officials named in their official capacity. 1 Doe brought this action alleging that the defendants have discriminated against her pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et
1 Those defendants are: Thomas A. Turco III, Commissioner of the Department of Correction; Sean Medeiros, Superintendent of MCI-Norfolk; Stephanie Collins, DOC Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Clinical Services; and James M. O’Gara, DOC’s ADA Coordinator.
1

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 59 Filed 03/05/18 Page 2 of 6
seq. (RA), and have failed to make reasonable accommodations to her disability, principally by refusing to transfer her to the state women’s prison. She also alleges violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doe has countered with a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, seeking various forms of injunctive relief, including transfer to MCI-Framingham.
The court heard oral argument on both motions on February 28, 2018. During those proceedings, the court specifically asked both parties to address two distinct aspects of Doe’s ADA claim; first, whether Doe’s diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria places her condition within the ADA’s exclusion of “transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavioral disorders” from the statute’s definition of “disability,” 42 U.S.C. § 12211(b)(1); and second, assuming that it does, whether the statutory exclusion can withstand constitutional scrutiny. The DOC, for understandable reasons, declined to expressly advocate for the statute’s constitutionality, deferring to the Attorney General of the United States. The court, agreeing with the parties that the constitutional question is substantial, on February 28, 2018,
2

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 59 Filed 03/05/18 Page 3 of 6
certified the question to the Attorney General pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
5.1(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2403. See Dkt # 57. Under the statute, the Attorney
General has 60 days to decide whether he wishes to intervene. Given the
overlapping constitutional issues inherent in the plaintiff’s ADA, RA, and
Fourteenth Amendment claims – and the DOC’s Motion to Dismiss those
counts – the court will defer a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss until the
Attorney General makes the decision whether or not to intervene. For that
reason, the court RESERVES its ruling on DOC’s Motion to Dismiss.
Pending an adjudication on the merits, and mindful of Doe’s claim that
“irreparable injury will be likely absent an injunction,” Respect Maine PAC
v. McKee, 622 F.3d 13, 15 (1st Cir. 2010), the court turns to Doe’s Motion for
a Preliminary Injunction. 2 The court concludes that Doe’s Complaint
2 Specifically, Doe sought a preliminary injunction, see Dkt # 35 at 3, ordering the defendants to:
1) transfer Doe to MCI-Framingham [a DOC facility for women]; 2) enjoin Defendants from using male correctional officers to conduct strip searches of Jane Doe, except in exigent circumstances; (3) enjoin Defendants from forcing Jane Doe to shower in the presence of men and with a shower curtain that does not adequately cover her; (4) enjoin Defendants from treating Jane Doe differently than other women held by the DOC; (5) train all staff on how to appropriately accommodate, treat and communicate with individuals with Gender Dysphoria within 60 days of this order; (6) enjoin Defendants from using male pronouns when speaking to or about Jane Does; (7) enjoin Defendants from referring to Jane Doe by her former male name
3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 59 Filed 03/05/18 Page 4 of 6
contains sufficient factual allegations that, taken as true, support the granting of provisional relief, pursuant to the equitable powers of the court, prior to a full adjudication on the merits and the possible exercise by the Attorney General of his right to be heard. The court believes that until the case is fully ripe it is in the interests of all parties to preserve the status quo and to insure that Doe has the continuing benefit of the accommodations DOC has already provided. The court is also mindful that, particularly when exercising jurisdiction over a claim for constitutional violations in a state prison system, the traditional discretion accorded to state prison administrators and principles of federalism caution that “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, [and] extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2), and, moreover, courts must give “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system.” Id.
For these reasons, the court ALLOWS IN PART Doe’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, without prejudice to renew her motion for additional
(or any abbreviated version thereof); (8) refer to Jane Doe by her chosen female name; and (9) award such other relief as is just and proper.
4

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 59 Filed 03/05/18 Page 5 of 6
injunctive relief, including those forms of relief not secured by this Order, as conditions warrant. Specifically, the court orders the following:
1) The defendants shall, consistent with staffing concerns and the collective bargaining agreements in place between prison administrators and corrections officers, utilize female correctional officers whenever feasible when conducting strip searches of Jane Doe.
2) The defendants shall, absent exigent circumstances, continue to house Jane Doe in the individual cell in Unit 3-2 and shall continue to offer the separate shower time to Jane Doe that the parties agree is currently provided.
3) To the extent staffing needs allow, the defendants shall make available a separate correctional officer to ensure that male inmates do not enter the shower area during the period of time in which Jane Doe is showering.
The court concludes that consideration of further relief – in particular a transfer to MCI-Framingham – is premature and should await the resolution of the constitutional issue. The court also declines Jane Doe’s request to impose new training requirements on DOC personnel as both exceeding its authority and as unduly burdensome on DOC. However, DOC is encouraged to take further reasonable steps to meet Jane Doe’s requests for safe accommodations, consistent with DOC’s other obligations under internal department policies and applicable state and federal law.
5

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 59 Filed 03/05/18 Page 6 of 6
SO ORDERED. /s/ Richard G. Stearns __________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6

 
 Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 129 Filed 07/08/19 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-12255-RGS
JANE DOE
v.
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES
July 8, 2019
STEARNS, D.J.
Jane Doe moves pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Rule 54 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the court to award her $228,408 in
attorneys’ fees and $11,740.94 in litigation expenses.1 Under Section 1988,
“a prevailing party in a civil rights suit is entitled to reasonable attorneys’
fees ‘unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.’”
Torres-Rivera v. O’Neill-Cancel, 524 F.3d 331, 336 (1st Cir. 2008), quoting
1 More specifically, the attorneys’ fees consist of $95,400 for Jennifer Levi, Director of the Transgender Rights Project at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD); $30,445.50 for Elizabeth Matos, Executive Director of Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts (PLS), Joel Thompson, Managing Attorney at the Prison Legal Assistance Project at Harvard Law School, and PLS paralegal Kate Piper; and $102,562.50 for Goodwin Procter LLP partner Anthony Downs and associates Louis Lobel and Ashley Drake. The litigation expenses consist of the cost of two expert affidavits prepared by Dr. Randi Ettner ($8,680.94) and James Aiken ($3,060).

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 129 Filed 07/08/19 Page 2 of 7
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983). “Section 1988 requires a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff is a prevailing party, and (2) if the plaintiff is a prevailing party, what constitutes a reasonable fee award.” Boston’s Children First v. City of Bos., 395 F.3d 10, 14 (1st Cir. 2005).
Doe argues that she is a prevailing party because, as the court noted, “all of the relief Doe sought in her Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been provided, including the principal request to be transferred to a women’s prison.” Dkt # 115. However, the Department of Correction (DOC) contends, and the court agrees, that Doe is a partially prevailing party because she only succeeded on March 5, 2018 when the court granted in part her original Motion for Preliminary Injunction.2
“To qualify as a prevailing party, a litigant must show that a material alteration of the parties’ legal relationship has taken place as a result of the litigation.” Hutchinson ex rel. Julien v. Patrick, 636 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2011). A litigant must also show a “judicial imprimatur on the change,” that is, (1) that she has “received a judgment on the merits” or (2) that she has “obtained a court-ordered consent decree.” Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001). Here,
2 The court ordered that of Doe’s nine requests, the DOC, where feasible, (1) arrange for appropriate strip searches, (2) continue to house her in an individual cell, and (3) ensure private showering. Dkt # 59.
2

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 129 Filed 07/08/19 Page 3 of 7
Doe only prevailed on the merits in her initial Motion for Preliminary Injunction, when the court granted three of her nine requests. While Doe ultimately received the remaining relief she sought, including a transfer to MCI-Framingham, the court was not involved.3 See id. (“A defendant’s voluntary change in conduct, although perhaps accomplishing what the plaintiff sought to achieve by the lawsuit, lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change.”); Castañeda-Castillo v. Holder, 723 F.3d 48, 57 (1st Cir. 2013) (“A party’s mere success in accomplishing its objectives . . . is insufficient to confer it prevailing party status.”).
The DOC also contends that Doe’s fee request is unreasonable and should be significantly reduced. “A reasonable fee typically is determined through the lodestar method, which involves multiplying the number of hours productively spent by a reasonable hourly rate to calculate a base figure.” Torres-Rivera, 524 F.3d at 336. “In implementing this lodestar approach, the judge calculates the time counsel spent on the case, subtracts duplicative, unproductive, or excessive hours, and then applies prevailing rates in the community (taking into account the qualifications, experience,
3 Massachusetts also passed the Criminal Justice Reform Act, requiring that prisoners be “housed in a correctional facility with inmates with the same gender identity.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 32A. But as Doe points out, the law was not effective until December 31, 2018, three months after the DOC transferred Doe (on September 25, 2018).
3

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 129 Filed 07/08/19 Page 4 of 7
and specialized competence of the attorneys involved).” Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 295 (1st Cir. 2001).
The court starts by reducing the total attorneys’ fees to those incurred prior to the court’s March 5, 2018 order, when Doe partially prevailed. The court also finds that some of Doe’s billing for the Preliminary Injunction hearing held on February 28, 2018 is duplicative. See Hart v. Bourque, 798 F.2d 519, 523 (1st Cir. 1986) (“Further duplication of effort is observable by dual attendance at motion hearings, no matter how inconsequential.”). Since only Levi advocated for Doe at the hearing, the court will remove other counsels’ billing for their attendance.4
Turning to the fees themselves, the court finds reasonable Goodwin’s hourly rates of $475 for partner Downs and $250 for associates Lobel and Drake.5 See Tuli v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., 2009 WL 10693567, at *2 (D. Mass. June 8, 2009) (finding rates of up to $735 for partners and $495
4 Specifically, the court discards the following hours: 3 for Downs, 2.5 for Drake and Matos, .7 for Piper, and 1.2 for Thompson. The court also reduces Lobel’s hours billed for the hearing by 2.5.
5 These are reduced hourly rates, as Downs typically bills clients over $1,00o per hour, while Lobel and Drake bill $590. Goodwin also avers that it pared down the hours to focus on its work done on core matters.
4

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 129 Filed 07/08/19 Page 5 of 7
for associates reasonable).6 The court also finds PLS’s hourly rates of up to
$350 reasonable. However, the court does not find Levi’s hourly rate of $600
reasonable for a nonprofit attorney billing in these circumstances and,
therefore, reduces her hourly rate to $350, in line with PLS’s rate. See
Giorgio v. Duxbury, 2016 WL 3983232, at *2 (D. Mass. July 25, 2016)
(“[T]he rate for counsel is determined by reference to the rates ‘prevailing in
the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable
skill, experience and reputation.’”), quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886,
895 n.11 (1984). The court, in turn, awards Doe one third of the total
attorneys’ fee because she successfully obtained relief on three out of her nine
requests in her original Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Hensley, 461
U.S. at 436-437 (“The district court may attempt to identify specific hours
that should be eliminated, or it may simply reduce the award to account for
6 The DOC argues that the hourly rates should be capped at 150% of court-appointed counsel’s rate pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). However, because Doe obtained partial relief under other statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the PLRA cap does not apply. See Rodriguez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 808 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he PLRA attorney’s fees cap does not apply even to federal law claims for which attorney’s fees are available under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as long as those claims are brought under statutes with their own attorney’s fee provisions”) (emphasis in original); Beckford v. Irvin, 60 F. Supp. 2d 85, 88 (W.D.N.Y. 1999) (“The PLRA does not limit the award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff whose award is authorized under a statute separate from § 1988.”).
5

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 129 Filed 07/08/19 Page 6 of 7
the limited success.”); Diaz-Rivera v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 377 F.3d 119, 121122 (1st Cir. 2004) (affirming the district court’s reduction of fees by one third to account for the plaintiff’s limited success).
As to the litigation expenses, the court finds that the fees for the two experts are reasonable, especially given that their testimony was used to support Doe’s original Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The DOC argues that Doe is barred from being awarded expert fees under Section 1988 because she is not “enforc[ing] a provision of section 1981 or 1981a.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court disagrees that expert fees are unavailable. See Pitochelli v. Town of Johnston, 996 F.2d 1209 (1st Cir. 1993) (Table) (“In an action to enforce civil rights, the prevailing party may recover attorney’s and expert fees.”), citing 42 U.S.C. § 1988. And although Doe brings this motion under Section 1988, Doe raised several claims including one under the ADA, which authorizes reasonable expert fees. See 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (allowing “a reasonable attorney’s fee, including litigation expenses, and costs”); Norkunas v. HPT Cambridge, LLC, 969 F. Supp. 2d 184, 200 (D. Mass. 2013) (“Where expert witness fees are deemed reasonable litigation expenses, they may be reimbursed.”), citing 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
6

Case 1:17-cv-12255-RGS Document 129 Filed 07/08/19 Page 7 of 7

The Table below incorporates the revised hourly rate for Levi and the reduced hours, as detailed above. The court, therefore, awards Doe $46,297.50 in attorneys’ fees and $11,740.94 in litigation expenses.

Total (Revised) Hours Hourly Rate

Anthony Downs (Goodwin) 55.2 $475

Louis Lobel (Goodwin)

124.1 $250

Ashley Drake (Goodwin) 54.4 $250

Jennifer Levi (GLAD)

131.5 $350

Elizabeth Matos (PLS)

22.3 $300

Joel Thompson (PLS)

24.7 $350

Kate Piper (PLS)

53.57 $125

Total

1/3 of Total

Total Fees
$26,220 $31,025 $13,600 $46,025 $6,690 $8,645 $6,687.50 $138,892.50 $46,297.50

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Doe’s motion for attorneys’ fees is

ALLOWED in part. The Clerk will award Doe to $58,038.44 in attorneys’

fees and litigation expenses.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard G. Stearns

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 This calculation includes a reduction of .4 hours as indicated in the Reply. See Dkt # 128 at 9 n.3.
7