Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 1 of 31

Mia Mazza (pro hac vice) Parisa Jorjani (pro hac vice) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 MMazza@mofo.com
Shannon P. Minter (pro hac vice) NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS 870 Market St., Suite 370 San Francisco, CA, 94102 Telephone: (415) 392-6257 Facsimile: (415) 392-8442
Sheryl 1. Musgrove (Bar No. 5233) MUSGROVE LAW P.O. Box 1773 Boise, ID 83701 Telephone: (208) 343-0613 Facsimile: (208) 343-2890
Attorneys for Plaintiff.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RANDALL GAMMETT aka Jenniffer Ann Spencer,

Case No. CV05-257-S-MHW

Plaintiff,

AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.

IDAHO STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, CAROLYN MELINE, RALPH TOWNSEND, DWIGHT BOARD, JIM TIBBS, JAY NIELSEN, ROBIN SANDY, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, THOMAS BEAUCLAIR, VAUGHN KILLEEN, GREGORY FISHER, JOHN HARDISON, KEVIN KEMPH, DAVID HAAS, DEB! TITUS, THOMAS KRUZICH, M.D., FRAUN

8f-2115218

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 2 of 31
FLERCHINGER, M.D., EDWARD CHEENEY, KENNE1H G. KHATAIN, M.D., CHAD SOMBKE, Ph.D., MARY PERRIEN, SHARLENE GREEN, PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, and CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Randall Gammett aka lenniffer Spencer, I by counsel, brings this action to obtain redress for the deprivation of her federally and state protected rights, as hereinafter alleged.
INTRODUCTION 1. lenniffer Spencer has been imprisoned in Idaho state prison since May 2000 for "theft by receiving or possessing stolen property" - specifically, possession of a stolen car. Ms. Spencer was not charged or convicted for stealing the car. Throughout her incarceration she has suffered from Gender Identity Disorder ("GID"), a serious medical condition characterized by: (1) a strong cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, of the other sex, and (2) a persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex. GID causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The most common form oftreatment is hormonal therapy, which in this case would be estrogen, administered by a qualified professional. 2. Prior to her incarceration, lenniffer Spencer lived full time as a woman and took female hormones in the form of oral contraceptives. She sought treatment for GID in September 2003, when she became aware that Defendant Idaho State Board of Corrections adopted a policy

1 Although Plaintiff was born a biological male, she identifies as female and wishes to be referred to using the feminine pronoun. She has changed her legal name to lenniffer Ann Spencer. Accordingly, throughout this pleading, she will be referred to by the feminine pronoun.

sf-2115218

2

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 3 of 31
for the treatment of offenders with OlD. Beginning in September 2003 through the filing of this lawsuit, Ms. Spencer submitted approximately 75 separate requests for treatment relating to OlD.
3. Ms. Spencer's requests fell on deaf ears. Despite her repeated requests, Defendants, the Idaho State Board of Corrections and its officers and agents, have shown deliberate, persistent indifference to her condition in violation of (1) the Idaho State Board of Corrections' Directives relating to the care of offenders with OlD and (2) the United States Constitution.
4. Specifically, Defendants failed to follow their own directives to apply appropriate standards of care as required under Idaho Department of Corrections Directive 01.06.03.501 to evaluate Ms. Spencer. Despite clear evidence suggesting gender dysphoria, Defendants failed to appoint qualified medical professionals to evaluate Ms. Spencer.
5. Upon learning that Defendants denied her treatment in August 2004, Ms. Spencer attempted suicide.
6. Following the suicide attempt, Ms. Spencer submitted 21 different inmate concern/request forms to Defendants requesting the reasoning behind Defendants' declaration that she did not have OlD. When she failed to receive a satisfactory explanation, Ms. Spencer filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court on June 30, 2005.
7. Still Defendants failed to respond. As a result of her inability to secure adequate treatment, Ms. Spencer attempted self-castration, cutting her scrotum with a razor blade. Ten days later, on October 19,2005, she cut her scrotum again, this time removing her testicles and flushing them down the toilet. Attending prison guards discovered a note in her cell: "I cut my
genitals off do [sic1to the facts that I am a transgendered individual and I could stand the sight of

sf-2115218

3

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 4 of 31
them no more. This is not a suicide attempt. This is simply a way for me to remmady [sic1my
problem." 8. As a result of her castration, Ms. Spencer is in need of hormone therapy to avoid a
range of negative health effects. Specifically, hormone therapy is necessary to prevent osteoporosis, muscle mass loss, relative fat mass increase, and increased cardiovascular disease in patients without functioning ovaries or testicles. In a male-to-female transgender person, feminizing hormones can also improve mood stability, decrease mental illness, and relieve anxiety. Withholding hormone therapy can lead to continued depression, suicidal ideation, and self-injury.
9. Defendants recognize that Ms. Spencer requires hormone therapy but have refused to provide estrogen. Ms. Spencer brings this action for an order requiring that Defendants provide treatment of feminizing hormones and psychological counseling by a mental health professional with substantial training and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of persons with GID. Ms. Spencer further seeks an order appointing a medical or mental health professional with experience in the diagnosis and/or treatment of persons with GID to serve as a member ofthe Management and Treatment Committee for a minimum of one year, to ensure the proper implementation of the Court's order as it relates to Ms. Spencer as well as the Department of Corrections' own directives relating to GID.
PARTIES 10. Plaintiff lenniffer Spencer is a citizen of the United States of America. She is currently a resident of the Idaho Maximum Security Institution at Boise, Idaho ("IMSI"). 11. Defendant Idaho State Board of Corrections ("Board of Corrections") is a political subdivision ofthe State ofIdaho, as defined in Idaho Code Section 20-201.

sf-2115218

4

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 5 of 31
12. Defendants Carolyn Meline, Ralph Townsend, Dwight Board, Jim Tibbs, Jay Nielsen, and Robin Sandy were or are currently duly appointed members of the Board of Correction, and were acting within the course and scope oftheir duties as members and as agents, servants and employees ofthe State ofIdaho at all material times.
13. Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections ("IDOC") is a political subdivision of the State ofIdaho as defined in Idaho Code Section 20-201.
14. Defendant Thomas Beauclair was at all times material hereto and up until July 2006 the duly appointed Director of IDOC as well as chief administrative officer and business manager ofthe state penitentiary pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-217A. Defendant Beauc1air was employed by IDOC, and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as director, chief administrative officer and business manager and as the agent, servant and employee ofthe State of Idaho at all material times.
15. Defendant Vaughn Killeen was appointed Director ofIDOC in July 2006 as well as chief administrative officer and business manager ofthe state penitentiary pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-217A. Beginning July 2006, defendant Killeen was employed by IDOC, and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as director, chief administrative officer and business manager and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho at all material times.
16. Defendant Kevin Kemph was at all times material hereto the Warden of the Idaho Correctional Institution at Orofmo ("ICIO"). Defendant Kemph was employed by IDOC, and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as warden and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho at all material times.

sf-2115218

5

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 6 of 31
17. Defendant Gregory Fisher was at all times material hereto, and up until June 2005, Warden of the Idaho Maximum Security Institution ("IMSI"). Defendant Fisher was employed by IDOC and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as warden and as the agent, servant and employee ofthe State ofIdaho at all material times.
18. Defendant John Hardison, since June 2005, has been Warden ofIMSI. Defendant Hardison was employed by IDOC and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as warden and as the agent, servant and employee of the State ofIdaho at all material times.
19. Defendant David Haas was at all times material hereto the Medical Services Manager at IDOC. Defendant Haas was employed by IDOC and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as Medical Services Manager and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho at all material times.
20. Defendant Prison Health Services ("PHS") is a corporation doing business in the State of Idaho. Pursuant to contractual agreement with IDOC, PHS provided medical services for IDOC imnates, including Plaintiff, until July 2005.
21. Defendant Correctional Medical Services ("CMS") is a corporation doing business in the State of Idaho. Pursuant to contractual agreement with IDOC, CMS provided medical services for IDOC imnates, including Plaintiff, beginning July 2005.
22. Defendant Debi Titus was at all times material hereto the Health Services Administrator at IMSI, either under contract to provide medical services for imnates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to imnates. Defendant Titus was acting within the course and scope of her duties as a medical service provider to IDOC imnates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant, and employee of PHS, eMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.

sf.2115218

6

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 7 of 31
23. Defendant Edward Cheeney was at all times material hereto a Clinician at ICIO, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Cheeney was acting within the course and scope of his duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant, and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State ofIdaho at all material times.
24. Defendant Thomas Kruzich was at all times material hereto a treating physician at ICIO, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Kruzich was acting within the course and scope of his duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant, and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State ofIdaho at all material times.
25. Defendant Fraun Flerchinger was at all times material hereto a treating physician at ICIO, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Flerchinger was acting within the course and scope of her duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant, and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.
26. Defendant Kenneth Khatain was at all times material hereto Chief Psychiatrist at IMSI, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Khatain was acting within the course and scope of his duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant, and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State ofIdaho at all material times.

sf-2115218

7

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 8 of 31
27. Defendant Chad Sombke was, until the end of2005, Chief Psychologist at IMSI, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Sombke was acting within the course and scope of his duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State ofIdaho at all material times.
28. Defendant Mary Perrien has been, since the end of 2005, Chief Psychologist at IMSI, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Perrien was acting within the course and scope of her duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State ofIdaho at all material times.
29. Defendant Sharlene Green has been, since spring of 2006, a psychologist at IMSI, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Green was acting within the course and scope of her duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant and employee of PHS, eMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.
30. Each and all ofthe acts of Defendants alleged herein were done by Defendants not just as individuals, but under the color of law and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, practices and usages ofthe State ofIdaho, and under the authority of Defendants as public officials for the State of Idaho.

sf-2115218

8

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 9 of 31

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
31. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, particularly under the provisions ofthe Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and under federal law, particularly 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988.
32. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this cause under Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1331, because the case arises under the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, and Section 1343, because this action seeks redress and damages for violation of Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988, and the federal claims are not insubstantial. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffs pendent state claims under Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1367.
33. This Court has personal jurisdiction because, on information and belief, each Defendant is domiciled within the State ofIdaho.
34. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1291(b) because, on information and belief, Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Background 35. lenniffer Spencer was born in Nampa, Idaho on October 25,1979. From an early age, lenniffer felt she was born into the wrong body, and that she was a female trapped in a male's body. As a minor child, lenniffer often would dress in girls' clothing, preferring it to boys' clothing. She was consistently treated by her parents as a girl, her father referring to her as "the little girl." 36. Beginning at the age of six, lenniffer was sexually abused by her father's cousin, James Masker. The abuse included fondling, oral sex, and anal sex. The abuse occurred on a

5f-21 15218

9

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 10 of 31

regular basis for a period of roughly two years and then increased when Masker moved in with Jenniffer's family when she was eight years old. The abuse ended only after Jenniffer confronted James when she was thirteen years old, brandishing her father's pistol and exclaiming, "[i]fI ever see you again, I'll kill you."
37. At age eleven, Jenniffer was diagnosed with a severe learning disability along with a high level of hyperactivity.
38. At age fifteen, following an arrest for petit burglary, Jenniffer became a ward of the State of Idaho and was placed in a group home.
39. The following year, Jenniffer was placed in a juvenile detention facility after she, together with a group of friends, took her father's rifle from his pickup truck and went to the river to shoot targets and fire at the water. Her parents reported the theft to Owyhee County Police and lenniffer was arrested.
40. Following her release from the juvenile facility, in 1999, Jenniffer lived with an older man and dressed, lived, and portrayed herself as a woman. In June of 1999, she began taking female hormones, in the form of birth control pills, in the hope that the estrogen would give her the secondary sex characteristics of a female. Finally, during this time period, Jenniffer applied for employment while dressed as a woman and indicated on an employment application that she was a female.
41. Jenniffer's presenting as a woman came to an end in July 1999 when she was arrested for possession of a stolen vehicle.
Conviction for Possession of Stolen Property and Incarceration 42. On July 26, 1999, Jenniffer was arrested by the Owyhee County, Idaho Police, for possession of a stolen vehicle. The Owyhee County Court, Third Judicial District, found that the vehicle had been stolen by another person from the Portland, Oregon Airport and given to Ms.

sf-2lJ5218

10

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 11 of 31
Spencer to use. lenniffer admitted to police that she knew the vehicle was stolen and was taken into custody.
43. Observing that Ms. Spencer was nnable to pay any of the $13,000 in restitution to the owner of the car, she was sentenced for evaluation at the Northern Idaho Correctional Institution ("NIC!") in Cottonwood. NIC! is a program-specific prison designed for male offenders sentenced to a retained jurisdiction commitment by the court. It provides a sentencing alternative for the courts to target offenders who might, after a period of programming and evaluation, be viable candidates for probation rather than incarceration.
44. On May 25, 2000, Ms. Spencer escaped from the Cottonwood facility and was apprehended two days later in Lewiston, Idaho.
45. As a result ofthe attempted escape, Ms. Spencer was transferred to the Idaho State Correctional Institution Orofino to serve a nine year sentence (six years for possession of stolen property and a three year enhancement for escape). Currently, Plaintiff is incarcerated at IDOC's IMSI facility in Boise, where she has been held in the psychiatric unit (known as "CBlock") since October 2005.
Plaintiff lenniffer Spencer's Requests for Treatment
46. In August 2003, Defendant IDOC instituted certain policies relating to the
treatment of offenders suffering from GID. On September 11, 2003, Ms. Spencer submitted her first request for information relating to the treatment of GID seeking copies of the policies.
47. After September 2003, Ms. Spencer submitted multiple requests for medical and psychiatric attention with regards to her gender dysphoria. Examples of those communications include:

sf-2115218

11

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 12 of 31
a) On September 14,2003, Ms. Spencer submitted a written health services request stating "I feel that I have a Gender Identity Disorder. I Feel that I need to Become a Women [sic]. I want to becom [sic] a women! [sic]"
b) On April 24, 2004, Ms. Spencer submitted a written request to Defendant Titus inquiring about the composition ofthe Treatment Committee, including the involvement of the Director.
c) On August 21, 2004, Ms. Spencer submitted a request to Defendant Haas stating "I want to know why I was told I Dont [sic] Have GID when I do have it. I want to know why I was Not seen by A GID specialist? 1want to be seen by A GID specialist and Given my Treatment for it." Defendants failed to respond.
d) On August 22, 2004, Plaintiff submitted another request to Defendant Haas
stating "I want to know why you are not following policiys [sic1concerning people who clame [sic1they have GlD. [1 Why are you not following your own procedures and policies?"
Defendants failed to respond. e) On March 8, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a Grievance Form asking why she
had not received a response from Defendant Haas so that she could proceed with legal recourse. The Grievance Form stated "This is a personal issue that I am trying to get help with and I am being eagnored [sic]. I'm tired of it." Finding IDOC's response insufficient, Plaintiff appealed. In response, on April 5, 2005, IDOC found that Plaintiff had been "evaluated appropriately" and that "a reasonable decision" had been made.
48. Ms. Spencer also submitted a number of requests to IDOC, IMSI, PHS, and eMS staff, specifically inquiring about the status of treatment for her GID condition. Defendants,

sf·2115218

12

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 13 of 31
however, continuously delayed in evaluating Plaintifffor GID, failed to provide appropriate medical care, and continue to do so today. Examples of Plaintiffs communications include:
a) On January 5, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request asking why the Treatment Team was taking so long to come to Orofmo and asking whether the medical department knew when they would visit. On January 9, 2004, Plaintiff was informed by Defendant Titus that the December meetings had been cancelled and that she had no further information.
b) Four months later, on May 15,2004, Plaintiff submitted a request to Defendant Titus asking, "Do you know what the hold up is? It's been Almost a year well 8 months since 1started this process." She asked further whether it was appropriate for Plaintiff to shave body hair and pluck eyebrows and stated, "it is very Frustrating. 1 feel like they are Just Brushing me off."
c) On May 21, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request asking about the GID Policy Directives, MTC composition and recommendations, informed consent for treatment, and GID services available and stated, "1 feel at the End of my 'rope' so to speak. 1 don't know what to do. I don't like the way I feel! I hate my self. I don't feel I'm being taken serious at ali. All I want is help so that I don't have to feel the way I do."
d) Eleven months after her initial request, on August 10, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request to Defendant Sombke stating "You said that you would talk to me. I would like to know what is going on with my case! I feel like I'm being ignored and I want to know why? I feel like maby [sic] I need to do something drastic to get your attention. Do I have to?"
49. Defendants have been aware of Ms. Spencer's serious medical condition since at least September 2003. Plaintiff repeatedly stated to Defendants, as well as other prison staff and medical providers, that she believed she was a woman trapped in a man's body. Plaintiff

sf-2115218

13

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 14 of 31

infonned Defendant Khatain about baving lived as a woman prior to incarceration. Plaintiff infonned Defendants Khatain and Sombke about going out numerous times in public dressed as a woman. Plaintiff also presented herself to other iumates as a woman and requested that they refer to her by her now legal name "Jenniffer" or "Jen." Defendants have also been aware that Plaintiff attempted suicide on August 14, 2004, attempted to castrate herself on October 9, 2005, and actually castrated herself on October 19, 2005.
Standard of Care for Offenders with GID 50. Defendants are required to follow a standard of care for the diagnosis and treatment of offenders with GID. Defendants failed to do so. 51. The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association's Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders ("Standards of Care") articulate the professional consensus about the psychiatric, psychological, medical, and surgical management of gender identity disorders. According to the Standards of Care, after a diagnosis of GID is made by a competent mental health professional, the therapeutic approach usually includes the administration of honnones of the desired gender and a real-life experience in the desired gender role. Further according to the Standards of Care, cross-sex honnonal treatments are often medically necessary for patients suffering from GID. Not only do they improve the quality of life, but they also limit psychiatric co-morbidity (the development of additional mental disorders), which often accompanies lack of treatment. In some patients, honnonal therapy alone may provide sufficient symptomatic reliefto obviate the need for "cross-living." Defendant IDOC has adopted the Harry Benjamin standards for the diagnosis and treatment of GID. 52. In addition, Defendants failed to follow their own directives for the diagnosis and treatment of offenders with GID. IDOC Directive 401.06.03.501, entitled "Health Care Services for Offenders with Gender Identity Disorder," governs the "treatment of offenders with [GID]

sf-2115218

14

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 15 of 31
and shall define the extent and general limits of health care services provided to offenders identified as meeting the criteria for diagnosis of [GID]." Section 05.01.00 of this Directive provides that the "diagnosis of GID will be based on the DSM IV criteria and the Harry Benjamin Standards, and must be assigned and/or approved by the Management and Treatment Committee." The Directive further provides that the MTC "shall conduct an evaluation of each offender considered and develop and recommend a treatment plan for each offender diagnosed. The treatment plan will be based on a review of any previous diagnosis and treatment, the offender's current treatment potential and the effects of change in treatment. The treatment plan shall address medical, mental health, placement and personal adjustment needs."
53. The Directive further provides that MTC is composed of the Medical Services Manager, the chief psychiatrist, the chief psychologist, the facility head (who, upon information and belief, is the warden), and other mental health, human services and security staff. According to this Directive, the MTC may also consult with "a medical specialist in the treatment of offenders with GID (such as an endocrinologist or psychiatrist)."
54. According to the Directive, the MTC "shall forward its recommendation for treatment and placement of offenders with GID to the Administrative Review Committee" ("ARC"). The ARC shall review the recommendation of the MTC, and "may, at its discretion, consult a medical specialist in the treatment of persons with Gender Identity Disorder, such as an endocrinologist or psychiatrist." The ARC then shall "submit its recommendation for placement, together with the recommendation of the [MTC], to the Director, who shall have final authority for placement."
55. At no time did Defendants actually comply with the requirements of their own directives or the Harry Benjamin standards adopted by Defendant IDOC.

8f-2115218

15

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 16 of 31

Plaintiff Ms. Spencer Receives Inadequate Treatment 56. Despite their knowledge of Plaintiff's serious medical condition and Plaintiff's requests for diagnosis and treatment, Defendants failed to provide medical care for her OlD condition. Examples of Defendants' knowledge of Plaintiff's serious medical condition and their deliberate failure to provide medical care despite repeated signs of OlD include:
(a) Plaintiff was hospitalized at Intermountain Hospital in Boise prior to incarceration, for mutilation of her genitals. Not only were Defendants aware of this hospitalization, but Defendant Kruzich, who treated Plaintiff at Intermountain Hospital, also saw Plaintifffor OlD at ICIO.
(b) On September 26,2003, Plaintiff's file was reviewed by Edward Cheeney, M.S., a clinician at ICIO, for indications of OlD. Defendant Cheeney summarized his findings in a one-paragraph medical memo, in which he stated that he found no indication of OlD.
(c) On September 30, 2003, Plaintiffrequested to be seen regarding a list of 19 detailed questions relating to GID. Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Titus who could not answer many of the questions, but instead educated Plaintiff on how a person develops values.
(d) On January 27, 2004, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Flerchinger at ICIO regarding OlD. Defendant Flerchinger noted that Plaintiff had "felt like this for a long time," had always been treated like her sisters, feels like a woman, in dreams is a woman, and felt normal when dressed in female clothing. Defendant Flerchinger concluded that Plaintiff was confused but not convincing regarding OlD, and thus did not meet the criteria for OID. Defendant Flerchinger further concurred with Defendant Cheeney's memorandum of September 26,2003.
(e) On July 20,2004, Defendant Khatain examined Plaintiff for OID. In a memorandum summarizing his conclusions, Defendant Khatain stated that "[t]here were definite

5[·2115218

16

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 17 of 31
references throughout [Plaintiff's1chart over the last few years ... that he feels that he is a
womao aod would like to have his sex chaoged surgically etc." He further stated that Plaintiff "stated 'I feel like I am a womao trapped in a mao's body.'" Dr. Khatain concluded that it was "unclear ifhe does or does not fulfill criteria for a gender identity disorder." He further concluded that ''there are no other current disorders."
(f) On August 11, 2004, in response to Plaintiff's request inquiring about the status of her case, Defendaot Sombke informed Plaintiffthat she would be going back to ICIO. Three days later, Plaintiff attempted suicide by haoging. In a "Mental Health Services Crisis Intervention" report regarding the suicide attempt, Defendaot Sombke notes that Plaintiff "was just told he does not have GID aod will be returned to lCIO."
(g) On August 17,2004, Defendaot Khatain examined Plaintiff regarding the suicide attempt. Despite his conclusion only a month earlier that Plaintiff had no current disorders, Defendant Khatain diagnosed Plaintiff with bipolar disorder aod placed Plaintiff on Lithium, a mood stabilizer. On November 3, 2004, Defendaot Khatain noted in a psychiatric consultation report that Plaintiff was doing well on Lithium aod "is no longer fixated on the gender issue." Defendaot Khatain misdiagnosed Ms. Spencer aod failed to treat the underlying GID.
(h) On October 9, 2005, Plaintiff ingested 30 Tylenol tablets aod attempted to castrate herself by making an incision in the scrotum with a razor blade. Plaintiff was placed on suicide watch, aod was asked to aod did sign a "Suicide Contract" agreeing not to make aoy further suicide attempts, gestures, or threats. On October 10, 2005, Dorothy Braodt, a cliniciao at leIO, met with Plaintiff regarding the suicide attempt. During the interview, Plaintiff stated that the reason she was depressed was due to the lack of treatment for her GID condition. Ms.

sf-2115218

17

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 18 of 31
Brandt did not respond or discuss the GID issue with Plaintiff. In her report, Ms. Brandt noted that Plaintiff was back on her medication, and that she appeared to be at a lower risk for suicide. According to the report, she educated Plaintiff on "nonnalizing being depressed to a certain degree on his birthday," and discussed education therapy groups with Plaintiff. The report lacks any reference to Plaintiffs GID issues.
(i) On October 19, 2005, Plaintiff castrated herself using a razor blade, and flushed her testicles down the toilet. She left a note regarding the incident stating: "I cut my genitals off do [sic] to the fact that I am a transgender individual and I could stand the sight of them no more. This is not a suicide attempt. This is simply a way for me to remmady [sic] my problem." Plaintiff also explained her intention on the day of the incident. When asked why she had caused pain to herself, Plaintiff responded that it was much more painful to live as a transgender.
0) On November 8, 2005, Plaintiff met with Defendant Khatain for a
psychiatric assessment. Defendant Khatain noted in his report that Plaintiff was recently sent to IMSI after self-castration, and was being seen "primarily to assess his mood status." He indicated a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and noted that plaintiffwas "stable on current medications." Again, Defendant Khatain misdiagnosed Ms. Spencer and failed to treat the underlying GID.
(k) On January 11,2006, Plaintiff was seen by the "Interdisciplinary Treatment Committee," which upon infonnation and belief, consisted of Defendant Perrien, D. Mitchell, M. Shaw, M. Johnson (a deputy warden at IMSI), and M. Crimson, a clinician at IMSI. Upon infonnation and belief, the "Interdisciplinary Treatment Team" is not a treatment team for the management and treatment of inmates with GID pursuant to lOOC policy. On the contrary,

sf-2115218

18

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 19 of 31
the memorandum issued as a result of this examination is merely a boilerplate form in which five generic categories of information are "checked." The memorandum is silent as to whether the "Interdisciplinary Treatment Team" reviewed Plaintiff's current level of care to ensure appropriate care, or whether the team developed a treatment plan for Plaintiff.
(I) On March 3, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Richard Christensen, an endocrinologist, regarding treatment in connection with the lack of hormones resulting from Plaintiffs self-castration. Dr. Christensen diagnosed Plaintiff with "male hypogonadism," and noted beard growth, hot flashes, temperature intolerance, decreased libido, and sleep disturbance. Dr. Christensen further noted the risks of untreated hypogonadism, including osteoporosis, muscle mass loss, fat mass increase, and metabolic change.
(m) On August 3, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Green, who offered Plaintiff testosterone treatment. Plaintiff refused testosterone treatment, and informed Dr. Green that she had castrated herself to eliminate testosterone in her body and that estrogen was the only appropriate hormonal therapy for her condition. On October 13, 2006, Dr. Green again offered Plaintiff testosterone, which Plaintiff again refused. Despite the dangers associated with a failure to treat hypogonadism, Defendants have not offered any hormonal therapy to Ms. Spencer other than testosterone.
(n) On September 19,2006, in response to a request inquiring about treatment for her GID condition, Defendant Green informed Plaintiffthat her treatment consists of "attend[ing] groups as allowed or as available." Rather than providing Plaintiff with an appropriate treatment plan for her condition, Defendant Green instructed Plaintiff to "[p]lease continue with your art."

sf-2115218

19

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 20 of 31

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Against All Defendants in Their Individual and Official Capacities Violation ofthe Eighth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution,
Actionable Pursuant to 42 US.c. § 1983 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment -Inadequate Medical Care) 57. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs I through 56 above. 58. Plaintiff is a biological male who suffers from Gender Identity Disorder ("GID"), also known as gender dysphoria or transsexualism. Plaintiff has been incarcerated at IDoe since May 2000. As a result of her GID, Plaintiff castrated herself in October 2005. 59. Even after Plaintiffs self-castration, Defendants continued to refuse to diagnose Plaintiff with GID or treat her for her GID symptoms. As a result, Plaintiff continues to suffer emotionally and physically due to her GID condition. Defendants' refusal to provide Plaintiff with female hormones after her self-castration has caused Plaintiff to lack adequate levels of sex hormones. 60. The only treatment offered by Defendants (specifically, Defendants Sombke, Khatain and Green) is testosterone. Plaintiff, however, has consistently refused testosterone and has clearly indicated to Defendants that in view of her GID condition, the only hormone she should be receiving is estrogen. Plaintiff expresses no regret for her self-castration, enjoys the changes in her body, and is much happier now that she has taken action to treat herself for her disorder. 61. Medical professionals with expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of GID agree that testosterone treatment is psychiatrically inappropriate and potentially dangerous for persons with GID who have self-eliminated their testosterone production via castration. Male sex hormones are likely to increase gender dysphoric symptoms, leading to depression, irritability, overall diminished mental health, and possibly overt suicidality. In such patients, treatment with

8f-2115218

20

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 21 of 31
feminizing hormones such as estrogen meets both the physical and the psychiatric needs for sex hormone replacement. Therapy with estrogen will minimize the effects of hypogonadism (for example, by reducing the risk of osteoporosis) while at the same time stabilizing psychological functioning.
62. None of the Defendants is qualified to diagnose or treat GID. None of the Defendants has an expertise in the diagnosis or treatment ofGID. None of the Defendants has ever provided Plaintiff with access to a mental health or medical provider (other than Plaintiff s medical experts) who is competent and qualified to diagnose and/or treat GID.
63. The IDOC Management and Treatment Committee never convened to evaluate Plaintiff for GID despite her repeated requests for diagnosis and treatment, even after her selfcastration. Defendant Haas did not convene the MTC to evaluate Plaintiff because he felt that there were no issues to discuss concerning a treatment plan for GID or specialized housing needs associated with GID.
64. Defendants Haas, Fisher, Hardison, Sombke, Khatain, Perrien, and Green were members ofthe Management and Treatment Committee at all material times. Upon information and belief, none of the Defendants has any relevant experience or expertise in GID diagnosis or treatment. None of the members ofthe Management and Treatment Committee has any particular experience or expertise in diagnosing or treating individuals with GID. None of the Defendants employs any personnel with relevant experience or expertise in GID diagnosis or treatment, nor have Defendants ever referred an IDOC inmate to a GID specialist for diagnosis or treatment.
65. The acts or omissions complained of herein were undertaken by Defendants with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Defendants intentionally denied,

5f-2115218

21

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 22 of 31
delayed, and interfered with Plaintiff's attempts to obtain appropriate medical treatment. In particular, Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff s health and safety by their delay in evaluating and treating Plaintiff for OID, their lack of competence in diagnosing and treating Plaintiffs condition and their failure to do so, and their ongoing failure to address Plaintiff s serious medical needs.
66. Plaintiff's OID condition qualifies as a serious medical need because a reasonable doctor or patient would find it important and worthy of comment or treatment.
67. Plaintiff's OID condition qualifies as a serious medical need because the presence of OID significantly affects an individual's daily activities.
68. Plaintiff's OID condition qualifies as a serious medical need because the failure to treat this condition can result in further significant injury and in the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.
69. Plaintiff's medical condition poses a substantial risk of serious harm, which risk and harm Defendants have been aware of and disregarded. To the extent any treatment was provided, the chosen course oftreatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. Thus, Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the serious risks posed by Plaintiff's medical condition.
70. Each of the Defendants acted under color of state law as to the matters set forth herein. All of the acts or omissions complained of herein are the result of specific decisions, official policies, and customs of Defendants. Each of the Defendants knows of and is responsible for the acts and omissions set forth herein.
71. Defendants have a duty to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiff and other state prisoners.

sf.2115218

22

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 23 of 31
72. Defendants' acts and omissions complained of herein amount to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
73. Defendants' acts and omissions complained of herein have caused Plaintiff to suffer economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
74. Plaintiff also seeks a judgment declaring that the acts and omissions complained of herein are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks the injunctive relief set forth in the prayer for relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Against All Defondants in Their Individual and Official Capacities Violation ofthe Eighth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution,
Actionable Pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983
(Cruel and Unusual Punishment Inadequate Medical Care)
75. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 74 above. 76. The Board of Corrections is responsible pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-209 for the control, direction and management of correctional facilities and for the provision of care and maintenance for all prisoners in state custody. Additionally, the Board of Corrections is responsible pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-214 for the training, employment, and tixing of duties for all assistants, ofticers and other persons necessary for the proper and efticient administration ofthe Idaho Department of Corrections. 77. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-212, the Board of Corrections may adopt, repeal, suspend or amend such rules as it deems necessary to the efticient management and control of the functions under the Board of Corrections' authority and all properties used in

8f·2115218

23

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 24 of 31
connection therewith. These rules have the force and effect of law and shall have precedence over policy and procedure statements, division directives or field memoranda.
78. According to IDOC Policy Number 401, entitled "Hospitalization, Institutional Clinical Services and Treatment," the Director serves as the chief administrative officer and business management authority for the Idaho Department of Corrections. The Director may, at his discretion, designate and assign an administrator to oversee IDOC's medical services. Moreover, according to IDOC Directive 401.06.03.501, the Director reviews the recommendations of the MTC and the ARC, and "shall have final authority for placement" of inmates with GID.
79. According to IDOC Policy Number 401, the Medical Services Manager shall act as the Department Health Authority, as approved by the Director. Along with the Director, the Medical Services Manager is responsible for the establishment of written health care standards for IDOC's facilities. In addition, upon information and belief, the Medical Services Manager serves on the MTC.
80. Upon information and belief the warden at each IDOC facility serves as the facility head. The facility head is the person with primary responsibility to oversee, manage or operate an IDOC facility. In addition, upon information and belief, the facility head serves on theMTC.
81. Upon information and belief, Defendants Titus, Kruzich, Flerchinger, Cheeney, Khatain, Sombke, Perrien and Green have provided or currently provide medical services to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff), either under contract as employees of PHS and/or CMS or employed directly by IDOC. Upon information and belief, none of Defendants Titus, Kruzich, Flerchinger, Cheeney, Khatain, Sombke, Perrien or Green has any particular experience or

8[·2115218

24

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 25 of 31
expertise in diagnosing or treating individuals with GID. Upon infonnation and belief, none of the medical care providers directly employed by IDOC, or employed by PHS and/or CMS and under contract with IDOC, has any particular experience or expertise in diagnosing or treating individuals with GID.
82. As part of their supervisory duties, Defendants know or must have known that medical care providers providing services to prisoners in IDOC custody are not qualified to diagnose or treat GID. Defendants also know or must have known of a custom, practice or usage of interfering with, or providing delayed and/or inadequate medical care to prisoners, particularly mental health care and more particularly treatment for GID, and therefore created a custom, practice or usage of delivery of constitutionally inadequate medical care to prisoners.
83. Defendants failed to provide adequate recruitment, retention, supervision and discipline policies relating to the delivery of medical care to prisoners, thereby creating within IDOC a custom or practice oftolerance toward the delivery of constitutionally inadequate medical care, in particular, as related to the diagnosis or treatment of GID.
84. Defendants' aforementioned actions and omissions constituted a state policy, custom or persistent practice, which actions and omissions amounted to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff and other prisoners.
85. Each of the Defendants acted under color of state law as to the matters set forth herein. All of the acts or omissions complained of herein are the result of specific decisions, official policies, and customs of Defendants. Each of the Defendants knows of and is responsible for the acts and omissions set forth herein.
86. Defendants have a duty to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiff and other state prisoners.

sf-2115218

25

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 26 of 31

87. Defendants' acts and omissions complained of herein amount to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff s serious medical needs and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
88. Defendants' acts and omissions complained ofherein have caused Plaintiff to suffer economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be detennined at trial.
89. Plaintiff also seeks a judgment declaring that the acts and omissions complained of herein are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks the injunctive relief set forth in the prayer for relief.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Against All Defendants in Their Individual and Official Capacities Violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution,
Actionable Pursuant to 42 u.s. C. § 1983
(Equal Protection) 90. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs I through 89 above.
91. IDOC's policies require that mentally disordered inmates incarcerated at moc's
prison facilities, including IMSI, be provided with appropriate medical and psychiatric care by
Defendants. For example, moc Directive 401.06.03.035, entitled "Mental Health
CarelEvaluation and Assessment," provides that "[m]entally disordered and developmentally disabled inmates must be identified and their treatment needs addressed as soon as possible. Those inmates who require acute mental health services beyond those available at the prison will be transferred to an appropriate facility which may include a facility in the community."
92. Upon infonnation and belief, inmates with mental disorders other than GID are
diagnosed and treated by Defendants according to moc Directive 401.06.03.035, regardless of
whether they were diagnosed or treated with those mental disorders before incarceration.

sf-21152 18

26

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 27 of 31
93. IDOC inmates such as Plaintiff who suffer from GID are not provided with medical care that is appropriate for their condition. Inmates such as Plaintiff who suffer from GID require acute mental health services beyond those currently made available at IDOC. IDOC inmates such as Plaintiff who suffer from GID are not transferred to an appropriate facility for proper diagnosis and treatment. Inmates with GID who were not diagnosed or treated for GID prior to incarceration are refused appropriate diagnosis and treatment by Defendants.
94. Plaintiff was not diagnosed with or treated for GID prior to incarceration. Defendants have refused to diagnose Plaintiff with GID or to provide Plaintiff with appropriate treatment for GID.
95. Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff because of her membership in a suspect class, namely, the class of inmates with GID. Defendants discriminate against inmates with GID, including against Plaintiff, by providing them inferior medical care as compared to medical care provided to inmates having mental health disorders other than GID.
96. Defendants have no rational basis in a legitimate governmental interest for intentionally discriminating against Plaintiffbecause of her status as an inmate with GID. Defendants' policy and the implementation of that policy represent an absolute ban on appropriate medical treatment for those inmates who were not already diagnosed with GID and receiving treatment before incarceration, and the policy provides no exceptions to this ban regardless ofthe seriousness of an inmate's GID problems. For example, prison personnel have stated in writing that "[w]e do not give out estrogen. This is a male prison."
97. Each of the Defendants acted under color of state law as to the matters set forth herein. All of the acts or omissions complained of herein are the result of specific decisions,

sf-21152 18

27

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 28 of 31
official policies, or customs of Defendants. Each of the Defendants knows of and is responsible for the acts or omissions set forth herein.
98. Defendants' acts and omissions complained of herein amount to a denial of Equal Protection by discriminating against inmates with GID, such as Plaintiff, without any rational basis.
99. Defendants' acts and omissions complained of herein have caused Plaintiff to suffer economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
100. Plaintiff also seeks a judgment declaring that the acts and omissions complained of herein are prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks the injunctive reHefset forth in the prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for judgment against Defendants, and each ofthem, as follows:
a) An Order requiring that Defendants provide to Plaintiff, within 14 days of the Order, (I) treatment with feminizing hormones, and (2) psychological counseling by a mental health professional with substantial training and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of persons with GID, which treatment and counseling shall continue throughout Plaintiff's incarceration in the Idaho Department of Corrections system;
b) An Order appointing a medical or mental health professional with experience in the diagnosis and/or treatment of persons with GID to serve as a member of the Management and Treatment Committee for a minimum of one year, to ensure the proper implementation of the Court's order in (a) above as well as IDOC Directive Nos. 401.06.03.501, regarding the health

sf-2115218

28

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 29 of 31

care of offenders, and 303.02.01.002, regarding the classification, management and placement of

offenders with GID;

c) Compensatory and general damages against Defendants in an amount to be

determined at trial;

d) Punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial;

e) Reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, as well as costs of

suit and interest; and

f) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

Dated December 1, 2006

MIA MAZZA PARISA JORJANI MORRISON & FOERSTERLLP
SHANNON P. MINTER NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS

SHERYL 1. MUSGROVE MUSGROVE LAW

By: /s/ Mia Mazza
MIA MAZZA MORRISON & FOERSTERLLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff

sf-2115218

29

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 30 of 31

STATE OF IDAHO

)

) SS,

County of Ada

)

1. Randall Jason Gammett (aka Jenniffer Ann Spencer), being first duly sworn on oath depose and say that I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case, that I have read the within and
(J ' . foregoing Complaint, that I know the contents thereof and that upon iniomlation and belief the
facts herein stated are true and correct.

.- I

Subscribed and sworn before me this zgll:-- day ofNo~ember, 2006,

1 ( A...,.'v \..../

i "~(,\.-../. ,

Notary Pu iJ or the State of Idaho

s" ReSI'd'mg at

~) 1",,<> ;

I

1""" ..1-

1~ --.

My Commission Expires 12.1'2-z: /1 I

,t~......... " . _./

..~"'~~,•,.\.i.S..G.R.O.~.,Ii'••••~....
e.. • ' ..' 1'5'V~o~~:; v\ :,

..-l i :: III '" III .:; .:1:;:

~ ?\i~ \

t::)'<t;

, ""\~:

...... 0«' ~..~

•••••• $1"Ai'€. •••",

I'••fU .....'"

sl~2115218

30

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 122 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 31 of 31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 1st day of December, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing document and its attachment with the Clerk ofthe Court using the CMlECF system which caused the following parties or counsel to be served by electronic means, as more fully reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing;
John J. Burke, Attorney for Defendants K.G. Khatain, M.D., Chad Sombke, Ph.D., Thomas Kruzich, M.D., and Jocelyn Patchett
(jjb@hallfariey.com)
James S. Thomson, II, Attorney for Defendants K.G. Khatain, M.D., Chad Sombke, Ph.D., Thomas Kruzich, M.D., and Jocelyn Patchett
Ost@hallfarley.com)
Phillip J. Collaer, Attorney for Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections (pcollaer@ajhlaw.com)
Paul R. Panther, Attorney for Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections (ppanther@corr.state.id.us)
Andrea L. Julian, Attorney for Defendants Prison Health Services, Inc., Fraun Flerchinger, Kenneth Khatain, Thomas Kruzich, Jocelyn Patchett, Chad Sombke, and Debi Titus
(ajul@hteh.com)
Joseph D. McCollum, Jr., Attorney for Defendants Prison Health Services, Inc., Fraun Flerchinger, Kenneth Khatain, Thomas Kruzich, Jocelyn Patchett, Chad Sombke, and Debi Titus
(jdm@hteh.com)
Lea C. Cooper (leacooper@homeinternet.net)
Correctional Medical Services, Inc.
OJ b@hallfarley.com)
Marci Marcantonio

8f-2115218

31

 
 Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 37

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RANDALL GAMMETT a/k/a JENNIFFER )

ANN SPENCER,

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

IDAHO STATE BOARD OF

)

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________________ )

Case No. CV05-257-S-MHW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket

No. 134). The Court held a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 11,

2007. The parties stipulated that the evidence to be presented at the hearing will be

limited to the affidavits, declarations, and reports filed in support of or in opposition to

the original Motion for Preliminary Injunction, including any supplemental medical

records or prison documents submitted by July 5, 2007. See Parties' Stipulation (Docket

No. 212).

Having considered the oral arguments of the parties, and having reviewed the

record and the parties’ extensive submissions supporting and opposing the motion, the

Court enters the following Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 1

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 37
DEFENDANTS' EXPEDITED MOTION TO AUGMENT RECORD RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
On July 20, 2007, Defendants filed an Expedited Motion to Augment Record re: Preliminary Injunction Motion (Docket No. 227). Defendants stipulated with Plaintiff that the record before the Court would be limited to those items presented to the Court by July 5, 2007. Because Defendants have not obtained the stipulation of Plaintiff to augment the record, the Motion is denied.
Defendants argue that they wish to proffer the deposition of Plaintiff's past friends and acquaintances to impeach Plaintiff's testimony that he dressed or lived as a woman prior to incarceration and that he received and ingested birth control pills for three weeks prior to his incarceration. While such laywitness testimony might call into question some of the basis for Plaintiff's experts' opinions, when placed in the balance against the other evidence Plaintiff has presented, it is not enough to tip the scale in Defendants' favor in terms of the narrow issues in the Preliminary Injunction Motion.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION A. Plaintiff's Request
Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated in the psychiatric treatment unit of the Idaho Maximum Security Institution (IMSI), under the care and custody of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC).1 Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from Gender Identity
1 Plaintiff was granted a legal name change after filing this lawsuit. Plaintiff is now known as Jenniffer Ann Spencer. Plaintiff’s counsel use the feminine pronoun throughout their court documents, and Defendants’ counsel use the male pronoun. The Court previously gave MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 2

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 37
Disorder (GID), which is a type of mental disorder identified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV).2 Defendants disagree, having diagnosed Plaintiff at different times with mental conditions ranging from "sexual disorder not otherwise specified," bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and/or attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD). During his incarceration, Plaintiff has made approximately seventy-five (75) requests for treatment for GID. Based on their original diagnosis and their continued care and treatment of Plaintiff, IDOC and CMS staff have refused to provide treatment for GID. Plaintiff attempted suicide in August 2004, when he learned that prison doctors did not believe he had GID. Over one year later, on October 19, 2005, Plaintiff performed a self-castration.
Plaintiff alleges that there are immediate physical and mental health risks associated with untreated GID and hypogonadism (a lack of hormones caused by the absence of his testicles) that warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction. In Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, he requests that the Court issue an order requiring Defendants to provide (1) hormone treatment of the type and dosage range recommended by Dr. Denise Taylor and Dr. George Brown, and (2) psychotherapeutic counseling as recommended by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Brown and as required by the IDOC's directives for
notice of its intent to refer to Plaintiff without the use of a pronoun, but it has elected to use the male pronoun for ease of discussion, and not as a reflection of the Court's view of the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.
2 The DSM-IV is the standard manual of psychiatric diagnoses published by the American Psychiatric Association. See Affidavit of Parisa Jorjani, Exhibit Y (Docket No. 1354). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 3

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 4 of 37
diagnosis and treatment of inmates with GID. Plaintiff has submitted the medical report of psychiatrist George Brown, a leading expert in GID diagnosis and treatment in correctional settings, who has opined that Plaintiff "continues to be misdiagnosed and untreated in the face of overwhelming evidence of GID as a primary diagnosis." See Affidavit of Parisa Jorjani, Exhibit D, Report of Dr. George Brown (Docket No. 136).
Plaintiff's request for an injunction focuses narrowly on current treatment for GID and hypogonadism, and therefore, it is directed at only those Defendants responsible for providing current medical treatment to Plaintiff. B. Standard of Law
A Rule 65 preliminary injunction may be granted if the moving party satisfies one of two tests, designated as the “traditional standard” or the “alternative standard”of law. International Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., 4 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. The traditional standard requires a demonstration of the following elements: (1) that the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied; (2) that the moving party will probably prevail on the merits; (3) that the balance of potential harm favors the moving party; and (4) that the public interest favors granting relief. Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1987). Under the alternative standard, "the moving party may meet its burden by demonstrating either: (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury if relief is not granted,3 or
3An irreparable injury is defined as an actual and concrete harm, or the imminent threat of an actual and concrete harm. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). A threat of harm is not “imminent,” if it is based MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 4

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 5 of 37
(2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships
tips sharply in [the moving party’s] favor." International Jensen, 4 F.3d at 822 (emphasis
in original). "Essentially, the trial court must balance the equities in the exercise of its
discretion." Id.
Because the physical well-being and mental health of the Plaintiff are at issue in
the Motion, the Court finds that the alternative standard is more appropriate than the
traditional standard. In Benda v. Grand Lodge of Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers, 584 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1978), the Court more fully explained how to apply the
alternative standard:
Recent cases have made it clear . . . that there are not really two entirely separate tests, but that they are merely extremes of a single continuum. Fox Valley Harvestore v. A. O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., 545 F.2d 1096 (7th Cir. 1976). The critical element in determining the test to be applied is the relative hardship to the parties. If the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly. Aguirre v. Chula Vista Sanitary Service and Sani-Tainer, Inc., 542 F.2d 779 (9th Cir. 1976). No chance of success at all, however, will not suffice. The irreducible minimum has been described by one court as a fair chance of success on the merits, McCormick v. Claytor, 441 F.Supp. 622 (D. Or. 1977), while another has said the questions must be serious enough to require litigation, Aguirre, supra. The difference between the two formulations is insignificant. Therefore, we accept either as satisfactory.
Id. at 315.4 Put an even simpler way, "'the greater the relative hardship to [the moving
upon remote possibilities or mere speculation. Caribbean Marine Services Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 675 (9th Cir. 1988).
4 The Benda Court noted that the alternative standard first appeared in William Inglis & Sons Baking Company v. ITT Continental Baking Company, 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975). See Benda, 584 F.2d at 315. The Benda Court noted that the alternate test has been approved
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 5

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 6 of 37
party], the less probability of success must be shown.'" Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999)).
The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that the "[t]he district court is not required to make any binding findings of fact; it need only find probabilities that the necessary facts can be proved." Sierra On-Line, Inc., v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir. 1984). C. Background
Gender Identity Disorder (GID), or transsexualism, is “[a] rare psychiatric disorder in which a person feels persistently uncomfortable about his or her anatomical sex, and who typically seeks medical treatment, including hormone therapy and surgery, to bring about a permanent sex change.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 829 (1994) (quoting American Medical Association, Encyclopedia of Medicine 1006 (1989)). Courts have consistently considered Gender Identity Disorder (including transsexualism or transgenderism) to be a serious medical condition for purposes of the Eighth Amendment. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2000); White v. Farrier, 849 F.2d 322, 325 (8th Cir.1988); Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 411-13 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 935 (1987); Wolfe v. Horn, 130 F. Supp. 2d 648, 652 (D.Pa. 2001); Phillips v. Michigan Dept. of Corr., 731 F. Supp. 792 (D. Mich. 1990).
several times by the Ninth Circuit. See id. (citing Motor Vessels Theresa Ann v. Kreps, 548 F.2d 1382 (9th Cir. 1977); Richter v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 559 F.2d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 1977)). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 6

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 7 of 37
Hypogonadism is defined as "a reduced or absent secretion of hormones from the sex glands (gonads). In men, these are the testes; in women, the ovaries." Health Reference, "hypogonadism," http://www.drkoop.com/ency/93/001195.html. In adult males, hypogonadism can cause increase in body fat, decrease in muscle mass, and loss of bone mass or osteoporosis. Men's Health, "male hypogonadism," http://www.mayclinic.com/health/male-hypogonadism/DS00300. In addition, "[a]s testosterone decreases, some men may experience symptoms similar to those of menopause in women. These may include, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, hot flashes, irritability, and depression." Id.
Plaintiff's current incarceration originated in July of 1999, when he was arrested for possession of a stolen vehicle. Plaintiff admitted to police that he knew the vehicle in which he was riding was stolen. Affidavit of Parisa Jorjani, Exhibit H (Docket No. 136). Plaintiff was sentenced for evaluation at the Northern Idaho Correctional Institution in Cottonwood, Idaho. Id., Exhibit H. On May 25, 2000, Plaintiff escaped from the Cottonwood facility and was apprehended two days later in Lewiston, Idaho. Id., Exhibit I. As a result of the escape, Plaintiff was transferred to the Idaho State Correctional Institution at Orofino (ICI-O) to serve a nine-year sentence (six years for possession of stolen property and a three-year enhancement for escape). Id., Exhibit J. It was at ICI-O that Plaintiff first saw the notice about the newly-adopted Prison Directive on GID that had been posted at the prison. Id., Exhibit D, p.7. The notice was a requirement of the settlement terms of Idaho's first GID civil rights case, Linda Patricia Thompson v. Dave MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 7

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 8 of 37
Paskett, et al., Case No. CV00-388-S-BLW. 1. Requests for GID Evaluation and Treatment In September 2003, Plaintiff's observation of the notice on the new GID policy
prompted him to submit a written health services request stating: “I feel that I have a Gender Identity Disorder. I Feel that I need to Become a Women [sic]. I want to becom [sic] a women! [sic]” Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit K. In response, Defendant Titus, the Health Services Administrator at IMSI, conducted an interview with Plaintiff on September 30, 2007. Plaintiff asked a series of questions during the interview, and Titus informed Plaintiff that a treatment team was being developed for inmates with GID. She also told Plaintiff that she would keep him informed about the progress of the treatment team’s formation. Id., Exhibits EE & FF.5
On January 27, 2004, Plaintiff met with Dr. Fraun Flerchinger, Clinical Director at State Hospital North in Orofino, Idaho. Affidavit of Fraun Flerchinger, M.D., Docket No. 162. She is a contract provider for Prison Health Services, Inc., and she performed one brief screening examination with Plaintiff, apparently at the request of Defendant Titus. Dr. Flerchinger met with Plaintiff in response to his request that he be evaluated for GID. Id., p. 2. Dr. Flerchinger characterized GID as a “rare disorder,” observing that she had
5 Plaintiff’s list of questions provided to Defendant Titus included the following: (1) How is my body going to change, aside from my body growing breasts? (2) How long will I have to take treatment before I become a woman? (3) When I become a woman, will I be able to have children? (4) Will I have trouble adjusting to being a female? (5) Why is it that I already see myself as a female? (5) How do families of people take these transformations? Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit FF (Docket No. 136). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 8

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 9 of 37
not encountered a patient with GID symptoms in her psychiatric practice. Id. Plaintiff told Dr. Flerchinger that he had requested evaluation for GID after he saw
a memo regarding new IDOC Directives on treatment for GID. The directives indicated that an inmate diagnosed with GID could potentially be considered for alternative housing within the IDOC facilities. Id., p. 3. During the brief screening visit, Plaintiff told Dr. Flerchinger that he was raised without a father figure and that he was treated like his sisters. He indicated that as a child, he felt more normal dressing in girls’ clothing, but as he grew older, he was less inclined to do so. He denied wanting to dress like a woman at the present time, and admitted a sexual attraction to both men and women. He said he felt more like a woman in his relationships. Plaintiff also reported being sexually abused as a child. Id., p. 3.
Plaintiff informed Dr. Flerchinger that he wanted to be in a special program for inmates with GID. After the evaluation for GID, Dr. Flerchinger decided upon an “informal diagnosis” of a personality disorder, sexual identity confusion, and/or identity confusion. Id., p. 2-3. Dr. Flerchinger also indicated that Plaintiff may be hoping to obtain some type of secondary gain through requesting evaluation for GID. She recommended that Plaintiff’s sexual confusion and identity issues be monitored. Id., p. 4.
In May of 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request asking about IDOC’s GID Policy Directives, the composition of its Management and Treatment Committee (MTC), and the GID services available, stating “I feel at the End of my ‘rope’ so to speak. I don’t know what to do. I don’t like the way I feel! I hate my self. I don’t feel I’m being taken serious MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 9

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 10 of 37
[sic] at all. All I want is help so that I don’t have to feel the way I do.” Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit L. Defendant Titus informed Plaintiff that there had been no recommendation in his case, and the MTC had not yet been picked. Titus informed Plaintiff that GID was not a life threatening illness and that his health issues would be handled as soon as the MTC convened. Id.
Six months after meeting with Dr. Flerchinger, Plaintiff was transported to Boise in July of 2004 to meet with Chad Sombke, Ph.D., Chief Psychologist at IMSI. Plaintiff had continued to request evaluation for GID while at ICI-O, and Dr. Sombke met with Plaintiff in July “for the purpose of determining whether he met the diagnostic criteria as set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV (DMS-IV) for GID.” Affidavit of Chad Sombke, Ph.D. (Docket No. 153). The DSM-IV sets forth the following criteria for GID: (1) a strong and persistent cross-gender identification; (2) persistent discomfort with the individual’s sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex; (3) the disturbance is not concurrent with a physical intersex condition; and (4) the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Id., p. 4. Dr. Sombke states that “in adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as preoccupation with getting rid of primary and secondary sex characteristics (e.g., requests for hormones, surgery, or other procedures to physically alter sexual characteristics to simulate the other sex) or [a] belief that he or she was born the wrong sex.” Id., p. 4.
Dr. Sombke recorded in his notes on July 19, 2004 that Plaintiff appeared to be MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 10

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 11 of 37
more confused with his sexual orientation than “actually meeting the criteria for a GID diagnosis.” Id., p. 5. Plaintiff also reported that he had experienced both heterosexual and homosexual “social relationships, but feels more comfortable in a female role.” Id., Exhibit B.
On July 20, 2004, Plaintiff was examined by Defendant Kenneth Khatain, M.D., Chief Psychiatrist for IDOC. Affidavit of Kenneth Khatain, M.D. (Docket No. 155). During the interview with Dr. Khatain, Plaintiff “stated that he is attracted to males and feels that while having sex with males he is [in a] female role.” Id., Exhibit B. Plaintiff also reportedly stated that “I feel like I am a woman trapped in a man’s body,” and that he was looking forward to a time when “he may be able to have surgery/treatment/etc.” Id., Exhibit B. Dr. Khatain concluded it was “unclear if [Plaintiff] does or does not fulfill criteria for a gender identity disorder,” and diagnosed him as having “no other current disorders.” Id., Exhibit B. Dr. Khatain explained to Plaintiff that Dr. Sombke was "considering some psychological tests to try to help with a diagnosis if in fact one exists," and that Dr. Khatain would consult with Dr. Sombke and make appropriate recommendations after that testing. Id., Exhibit B.
On July 21, 2004, Dr. Sombke performed additional testing and evaluation of Plaintiff. The evaluation included an interview to obtain Plaintiff’s history and the administration of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Sombke Affidavit, ¶ 10 (Docket 153). The evaluation states that “[Plaintiff] appears to be more confused over his sexual orientation than his actual gender identity. . . He is very ambivalent about his MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 11

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 12 of 37
desire to be a woman and about his belief that he was born a woman inside a male body.” Id., Exhibit C.
Dr. Sombke’s diagnosis after the psychological evaluation was “AXIS I: 302.9 Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.” Id., Exhibit C. He determined that Plaintiff was at a high risk of suicidal behaviors, and that he “may benefit from some education and/or counseling regarding his sexual orientation issues.” Id., Exhibit C. On the bottom of the evaluation is the signature of Dr. Kenneth Khatain, the contract psychiatrist for IMSI, and the words “reviewed & concur [with] conclusion.” Id. There is nothing in the record indicating that Plaintiff ever received education or counseling regarding his sexual orientation issues.
On August 10, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request to Dr. Sombke, stating: “You said that you would talk to me. I would like to know what is going on with my case! I feel like I’m being ignored and I want to know why? I feel like maby [sic] I need to do something drastic to get your attention. Do I have to?” Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit O. Dr. Sombke orally informed Plaintiff the next day that he did not have GID. Id., Exhibit P. Three days later, Plaintiff attempted suicide by hanging. Id.
On August 17, 2004, Dr. Khatain examined Plaintiff regarding the suicide attempt at the request of Dr. Sombke. One month prior to the suicide attempt, Plaintiff’s diagnosis was “no other current disorders,” but Dr. Khatain concluded at this examination that Plaintiff suffered from bipolar disorder. The notation on the “psychiatric consultant’s notes” is “Bipolar disorder type one versus two?” Apparently, the diagnosis was unclear MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 12

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 13 of 37
as to the type of bipolar disorder Plaintiff had, and he was given a prescription for Lithium. Khatain Affidavit, Exhibit. C. At a follow-up consultation on November 3, 2004, Dr. Khatain noted that Plaintiff “is no longer fixated on the gender issue.” Id., Exhibit D.
Following the suicide attempt, Plaintiff submitted twenty-one (21) written requests to know the reason behind Defendants’ decision to exclude a GID diagnosis. On August 22, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request to Defendant Haas, the medical services manager, stating “I want to know why you are not following policiys [sic] concerning people who clame [sic] they have GID. [ ] The only person who can diagnose GID is a specialist. Why are you not following your procedures and policies?” Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit R. Several months later, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on June 30, 2005, alleging an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim regarding GID treatment.
On October 9, 2005, Plaintiff attempted self-castration by making an incision in his scrotum with a razor blade. Plaintiff stated he was depressed because he had not heard from his family. He also stated that he was upset because he wanted to go to a Boise correctional facility due to his “transgender issues.” Id., Exhibit S. Defendants responded by explaining that it was normal to be “depressed to a certain degree” around one’s birthday and discussed Plaintiff’s participation in education therapy groups. Id., Exhibit T. Ten days later, on October 19, 2005, Plaintiff completed the self-castration and flushed his testicles down the toilet. Id., Exhibit. V. Before the self-castration, he wrote a note stating: “I cut my genitals off do [sic] to the fact that I am a transgenderd MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 13

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 14 of 37
[sic] individual and I could stand the sight of them no more. This is not a suicide attempt. This is simply a way for me to remmady [sic] my problem.” Id., Exhibit. U. When asked by a member of the prison staff why he had gone through something so painful, Plaintiff responded that "it was much more painful to live as a transgender.” Id., Exhibit V.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that Plaintiff was re-evaluated for GID by any physician or mental health professional affiliated with IDOC after the self-castration, nor does it appear that he was provided with counseling focused on gender identity issues. There is nothing in the record showing that the IDOC policy relating to gender identity diagnosis and treatment was followed either prior to or after the self-castration. Dr. Khatain states that “I thought my previous diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder was correct,” Dr. Khatain Affidavit, p. 8, and makes no reference to Dr. Sombke's diagnosis of Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, with which he concurred, Dr. Sombke Affidavit, Exhibit C (Docket No. 153). The chart notes for November 8, 2005 state that Plaintiff “made no discussion during the interview regarding issues of removing his testicles or any other sexual identity issues.” Id., Exhibit E. There is nothing in the chart notes proffering a diagnostic or psychiatric explanation for the self-castration by Dr. Khatain or Dr. Sombke. Both of these doctors left the prison at some point in time after this litigation was instigated and are not involved in Plaintiff's current care.
2. Referral to Endocrinologist On March 3, 2006, nearly five months after the self-castration, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Richard Christensen, an endocrinologist, in connection with the lack of hormones MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 14

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 15 of 37
caused by Plaintiff's removal of his testicles. Affidavit of Richard B. Christensen, ¶¶ 3-4 (Docket No. 137). Dr. Christensen diagnosed Plaintiff as suffering from hypogonadism as a result of a hormone deficiency cause by the self-castration. Id., ¶ 5. Plaintiff informed Dr. Christensen that he was not interested in taking replacement testosterone, but that he wanted to be placed on estrogen hormones. Id. Dr. Christensen states that “[g]iven the patient’s self-castration, he needs to be on some form of hormone replacement to avoid and/or reverse the negative health effects of his hypogonadism.” Id., ¶ 6. Dr. Christensen’s chart notes indicate that Plaintiff was informed of the health risks associated with hypogonadism which include: “osteoporosis, muscle mass loss, relative fat mass increase, and metabolic changes that may constitute an increased risk of future CVD (although data on the latter is limited).” Id., Exhibit B (Docket No. 138). Dr. Christensen also noted that he could not make a recommendation as to whether Plaintiff should pursue estrogen therapy “without a thorough psychological evaluation by someone experienced in gender change.” Id., Exhibit B, p. 3.
Defendants have not offered any estrogen hormonal therapy to Plaintiff, but have offered only testosterone replacement. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sombke offered to make a disciplinary offense report “go away” if he cooperated and took testosterone. Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit A. On September 19, 2006, in response to a request inquiring about treatment for his GID condition, Dr. Green, Plaintiff’s current CMS psychologist, advised Plaintiff to “[p]lease continue with your art,” referring to the art therapy program Plaintiff was involved in. Id., Exhibit X. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 15

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 16 of 37
3. Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony At Plaintiff’s deposition, he stated that from an early age he felt as though he had been born into the wrong body, and that he was a female trapped in a male’s body. Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit A, pp. 218:16 & 167:14-19; Exhibit B, p. 2; Exhibit D, p. 5. As a child, Plaintiff reported dressing in girls’ clothing and feeling more comfortable than in boys’ clothing. Id., Exhibit A, p. 323:23; Exhibit B, p. 2; Exhibit D, p. 5. Plaintiff reported being consistently treated by his parents as a girl, and his father referring to him as “the little girl.” Id., Exhibit A, p. 33:15-17. As a teenager, Plaintiff was hospitalized in 1994 for mutilation of his genitals. Id., Exhibit G (Intermountain Hospital records); Exhibit A, pp. 187:17 to 188:21. As an adult, Plaintiff claims that he began dressing, living, and portraying himself as a woman full-time, and shared a home with a male partner. Id., Exhibit A, pp.127:15128:1 & 219:20-24; Exhibit B, p. 2; Exhibit D, p. 5. In June of 1999, he briefly took female hormones, in the form of birth control pills. Id., Exhibit A, pp. 133:25 to 135:14; Exhibit B, p. 2; Exhibit D, p. 6. Plaintiff also reported applying for employment while dressed as a woman and indicated on an employment application that he was a female. Id., Exhibit DD, p. 12. After his incarceration at an IDOC facility in 2000, Plaintiff made efforts to dress and groom as a woman, including wearing skirts, shaving body hair, and using makeup. Id., Exhibit A, p. 312:13-20; Exhibit D, p. 6. Plaintiff also disclosed the following at his deposition: Q. The fact that you aren't diagnosed right now, does that affect your MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 16

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 17 of 37
interactions with other inmates here?
A. It doesn't affect them, but it affects me.
Q. And how so?
A. Because I -- well, for starters, one thing that I'm not, one thing that I don't tell the psychologists and psychiatrists is that -- well, for starters, I contemplate suicide quite a bit. I contemplate how I'm going to feel when I actually get a chance to get treatment. You know, how I feel, you know, every day, just stuff like that."
Id, p. 314:4-15.
4. Opinions of Experts
Plaintiff retained George Brown, M.D., as a psychiatric expert, who has twenty
years of experience in diagnosing gender disorder issues. Dr. Brown specializes in the
treatment of gender issues, using the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria
Association’s Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders (“Harry Benjamin
Standards”) Id., Exhibit D. The Harry Benjamin Standards are described as a
professional consensus about the psychiatric, psychological, medical, and surgical
management of gender identity disorders.6 See Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit Z, p.1. The
IDOC refers to the Harry Benjamin Standards in its policy governing GID treatment,
6 The Harry Benjamin Standards provide that after a diagnosis of GID is made by a competent mental health professional, a therapeutic approach to treatment usually includes the administration of hormones of the desired gender and real-life experience living in the desired gender role. Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit Z, p.11-14. Cross-sex hormonal treatments are often medically necessary for patients suffering from GID. Id., p. 13. Hormone treatment can improve the quality of the patient's life, and limit the psychiatric co-morbidity (i.e., the development of additional mental disorders) which can accompany lack of treatment. Id. In some patients, hormonal therapy alone may provide sufficient symptomatic relief to individuals with GID. Id., p. 14. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 17

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 18 of 37
Directive No. 401.06.03.501. Id., Exhibit F at § 05.01.00. Dr. Brown has been a member of the Harry Benjamin International Gender
Dysphoria Association since 1986 and has served on the Committee to Revise the Standards of Care (1990-98), the Standards of Care Revision Committee (member from 2001 to the present, Co-Chairman until 2005), and the Board of Directors (2001-2005). Id. Dr. Brown has authored numerous publications on sexual and gender identity disorders, including the diagnosis and treatment of GID. Id.
On November 13, 2006, Dr. Brown interviewed and examined Plaintiff. Based on the interview and examination, an extensive review of his prison and medical records, and the relevant literature, Dr. Brown concluded that (1) Plaintiff indisputably suffers from GID, id., Exhibit D, p. 3; (2) Plaintiff has been misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder despite overwhelming evidence of GID as a primary diagnosis, id., Exhibit D, p. 2-3; (3) Untreated GID in inmates can be a life-threatening condition because it potentially leads to suicidal behavior and near-lethal self-surgeries, id., Exhibit D, p. 20; (4) Plaintiff continues to be both misdiagnosed and untreated for the GID condition, id., Exhibit D, p. 21; and (5) Plaintiff has not received appropriate psychiatric or medical treatment for GID, id., Exhibit D, p. 21.
Dr. Brown further concluded that testosterone is contraindicated for Plaintiff’s condition, and in fact is harmful because it “would lead to increased gender dysphoria, desperateness, depression and suicidality, with a high degree of medical certainty.” Id., Exhibit D, p. 22. Dr. Brown recommended estrogen therapy “for both physical and MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 18

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 19 of 37
mental health benefits.” Id., Exhibit D, p. 23. Dr. Brown also opined that "in the absence of a formal diagnosis of GID, the symptom complex of gender dysphoria should still be addressed in any comprehensive treatment plan." Id., p. 8.
Dr. Brown’s report concurs with the diagnosis of Dr. Denise Taylor, M.D., a second expert retained by Plaintiff. Dr. Taylor examined Plaintiff on April 11, 2006, and also reviewed Plaintiff’s prison and medical records. Dr. Taylor has provided medical care to approximately 150 inmates with GID and has consulted with numerous physicians on the diagnosis and treatment of GID. Id., Exhibit B, p. 1. Dr. Taylor concluded that Plaintiff “definitely suffers from significant gender dysphoria and meets the criteria for GID as defined by the DSM-IV,” and Plaintiff “appears to meet the eligibility criteria and the readiness criteria for hormone therapy as described by the [Harry Benjamin] Standards of Care.” Id., Exhibit B, p. 3-4.
Dr. Taylor also stated that “[d]espite [Plaintiff's]regular contact with mental health professionals, it appears that psychotherapy has not been adequately provided in this correctional setting.” Id., Exhibit B, p. 3. Dr. Taylor asserted that in her expert opinion “the need for sex hormones is essential to [Plaintiff’s] physical and mental health.” Id., Exhibit C, p. 2. According to Dr. Taylor, female hormones can assist in stabilizing mood, relieving anxiety, and improving self-esteem, and “[w]ithholding them can have serious consequences, such as continued depression, suicidal tendencies and self-injury.” Id., Exhibit B, p. 4. In Dr. Taylor’s opinion hormone therapy is “essential to prevent osteoporosis” and “premature fractures.” Id. She believes that testosterone is not a viable MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 19

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 20 of 37
option because it would be a detriment to Plaintiff’s psychological well-being and would potentially place Plaintiff at serious risk of increased depression and suicidality. Id., Exhibit C. “Therefore, estrogen is the only appropriate choice,” she concludes. Id.
Dr. Taylor recommended that Plaintiff take a daily dose of 1.25 mg of Premarin, 1 mg of Estradiol, or 0.1 mg of Estinyl. Id. Dr. Taylor characterized this dosage as a low level of estrogen sufficient to prevent the risk of osteoporosis and to provide enough feminizing effects to improve Plaintiff’s gender dysphoria without a significant development of secondary sexual characteristics. Id. Dr. Taylor described this course of treatment as an appropriate temporary solution with the long-term treatment providing for 5-10 mg Premarin daily, and 1-5 mg Estradiol or 0.1-0.5 mg Estinyl. Id.
Defendants retained Dr. Lori Kohler for the purpose of reviewing and evaluating Plaintiff’s medical records. Affidavit of Lori Kohler, M.D., ¶ 6 (Docket No. 156). Dr. Kohler reviewed the contents of Plaintiff’s medical file and his prison file through November of 2005, his Presentence Investigation Report, and the transcript of his deposition. Id. Dr. Kohler did not personally interview or examine Plaintiff.
Dr. Kohler is a member of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, and she is a family practice physician experienced in providing primary care to patients who identify themselves as transgender. She also acts as a consultant for the California Department of Correction in providing medical care for transgender inmates.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 20

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 21 of 37
Dr. Kohler also previously served as a Rule 706 expert7 for a lawsuit in the District of Idaho filed by an inmate suffering from gender identity disorder. See id., ¶¶ 1-4.
Dr. Kohler provided an opinion for the Defendants that the “evaluation, care and treatment provided by prison medical personnel to inmate Gammett up to and including the time of his self-castration in October 2005 were appropriate.” Id., ¶ 9. She stated that in light of the patient history Plaintiff provided to the medical providers and the documentation available in his prison records, “the initial assessments by inmate Gammett’s medical providers that [he] did not meet the diagnostic criteria for GID were proper . . . .” Id.
As to the self-castration event, Dr. Kohler opined: Based upon my review of this matter, it is my opinion that inmate
Gammett's self-castration incident in October 2005 could not have been reasonably anticipated. Moreover, Inmate Gammett's self-castration is not conclusive evidence of GID. Inmate Gammett has a documented history of self-mutilation, as well as impulsive, compulsive, attention seeking behavior. It is my opinion that Mr. Gammett is used to acting out and has been conditioned to gain attention by such behavior. Id., ¶ 13. In regard to estrogen therapy, Dr. Kohler stated that the patient must be mentally stable before commencing such treatment. She also asserts that she “would not initiate such treatment with a patient such as inmate Gammett, where a diagnosis of GID by the inmate’s treating providers has not been reached.” Id., ¶¶ 14-15.
7 See Fed. R. Evid. 706; Linda Patricia Thompson v. Dave Paskett, et al., Case No. CV00-388-S-BLW. . MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 21

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 22 of 37
Defendants also retained Anne A. Lawrence, M.D., a member of the Harry Benjamin Association Committee that authored the current version of the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders, to render an opinion "regarding whether the inmate met the diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder (GID) at the time he was evaluated by psychologist Chad Sombke and psychiatrist Ken Khatain in July of 2004." Affidavit of Anne A. Lawrence, ¶ 2 (Docket No. 157-2). Dr. Lawrence reviewed Plaintiff's medical records, prison records, and deposition testimony, but did not personally interview or examine Plaintiff. Dr. Lawrence concluded that "there is no clear indication that Mr. Gammett met the necessary criteria for a diagnosis of GID in July 2004." Id., ¶ 5.
Sharlene Green, Psy.D., currently provides psychological counseling for Plaintiff at IMSI. Affidavit of Sharlene Green, Psy.D. (Docket No. 154). Dr. Green has twenty years of experience treating individuals with various sexual disorders, including GID. Id., ¶ 4. Since April of 2006, Dr. Green has been Plaintiff’s treating psychologist, and has been able to observe and interact with him between three to five hours per week. Id., ¶ 7. She concurs with the diagnosis reached by Dr. Sombke that Plaintiff does not have GID, and she does not believe that the diagnosis has changed from the time these medical providers rendered their opinions. Id., ¶ 9
It is Dr. Green’s opinion that “personality dynamics, and not an underlying GID issue, were the driving factors which led inmate Gammett to castrate himself in October of 2005.” Id., ¶ 12. She also states that “inmate Gammett is now psychologically trapped MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 22

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 23 of 37
by his own cognitive distortions as he has removed his genitals. Psychologically, he must now balance that act against how he see himself sexually. That is, he has no choice but to maintain a belief system that he is female. ” Id.
Dr. Green does not recommend any therapy beyond what Plaintiff is currently being provided. Nor does she believe that Plaintiff should receive estrogen therapy. Id., ¶ 14. D. IDOC’s Policies for Evaluation and Treatment of Inmates with GID
In August 2003, the IDOC instituted new policies relating to the diagnosis and treatment of offenders suffering from GID. Specifically, IDOC Directive No. 401.06.03.501, entitled “Health Care Services for Offenders with Gender Identity Disorder,” governs the treatment of offenders with GID and defines the parameters of health care services provided to such offenders. Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit F (IDOC Directive No. 401.06.03.501) (Docket No. 135). The Directive provides that diagnosis of GID is to be based on the DSM-IV criteria and the Harry Benjamin Standards. Id. at § 05.01.00.
IDOC’s protocol further provides that diagnosis of GID must be assigned and/or approved by the Management and Treatment Committee (“MTC”). Id., Exhibit F at § 05.01.00. The MTC is required to “conduct an evaluation of each offender considered and develop and recommend a treatment plan for each offender diagnosed.” Id. The treatment plan is to address medical, mental health, placement and personal adjustment needs. Id. The MTC is to be composed of the medical services manager, the chief MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 23

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 24 of 37
psychiatrist, the chief psychologist, the facility head (i.e., the warden), and other mental health, human services, and security staff. Id. The MTC may also consult with “a medical specialist in the treatment of offenders with GID (such as an endocrinologist or psychiatrist).” Id. The MTC then forwards its recommendation for treatment and placement of offenders with GID to the Administrative Review Committee (“ARC”). Id. at § 05.02.00. The ARC reviews the recommendation of the MTC, and may, at its discretion, consult a medical specialist in the treatment of persons with GID. Id. The ARC then submits its recommendation for placement, together with the recommendation of the MTC, to the Director, who has final authority for placement. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to follow the GID directives because Defendants did not convene the MTC to evaluate Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants did not consult a specialist in GID, nor did they apply the requisite standards of either the DSM-IV or the Harry Benjamin Standards. Id., Exhibit HH. E. Standard of Law Governing Merits of Claim
To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim regarding prison medical care, Plaintiff must show that prison officials’ “acts or omissions [were] sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1976)). Deliberate indifference exists when an official knows of and disregards a serious medical condition or when an official is "aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of harm exists,” and actually draws such an inference. Farmer v. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 24

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 25 of 37
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994). The deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm standard is met if a medical provider acts "recklessly disregarding that risk." Id. at 836. Mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence will not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment. Broughton v. Cutter Lab, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980).
To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, the plaintiff need not prove a "complete failure to treat." Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). Failure to render competent care may also violate the Eighth Amendment. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982). In Hoptowit, the Court explained:
Access to the medical staff has no meaning if the medical staff is not competent to deal with the prisoners' problems. The medical staff must be competent to examine prisoners and diagnose illnesses. It must be able to treat medical problems or to refer prisoners to others who can. Such referrals may be to other physicians within the prison, or to physicians or facilities outside the prison. Id. at 1253. The Hoptowit Court emphasized that "[t]hese requirements apply to physical, dental, and mental health." Id. Differences in judgment between medical providers regarding appropriate medical diagnosis and treatment are not enough to establish a deliberate indifference claim. See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). "To prevail on a claim involving choices between alternative courses of treatment, a prisoner must show that the chosen course of treatment 'was medically unacceptable under the circumstances,' and was chosen 'in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the prisoner's] health.' Toguchi v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 25

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 26 of 37
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). F. Discussion of Whether Plaintiff Has Raised Serious Questions Going to the
Merits The first part of the preliminary injunction test is whether Plaintiff has raised serious questions going to the merits of the claims at issue. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has no chance of winning his Eighth Amendment claim for failure to treat GID because his treating physicians have diagnosed him with other mental disorders, have provided medication for those disorders, and have continued to monitor him in the mental health unit of the prison. As to the issue of whether Plaintiff should have male or female hormone therapy, Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the treatment of his choice.8 Plaintiff frames the issues differently -- that, under the circumstances, Defendants' failure to treat his GID and their offer to provide only male hormone therapy are medically unacceptable courses of treatment that have been chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his health. The Court finds a probability that Plaintiff can prove the necessary facts at trial to prevail on the narrow issue that current medical providers are ignoring Plaintiff's serious medical needs. In particular, Plaintiff has shown that there is little, if any, evidence in the record to show that Defendants have performed a
8 Circuit cases of two decades ago generally hold that GID inmates have no constitutional right to estrogen therapy, and that so long as some treatment is offered, such as testosterone, the Eighth Amendment standard is met. See White v. Farrier, 849 F.2d 322, 325-27 (8th Cir. 1988); Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 411-13 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 935 (1987); Supre v. Ricketts, 792 F.2d 958, 963 (10th Cir. 1986). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 26

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 27 of 37
comprehensive and meaningful re-evaluation of Plaintiff's condition since the following information has come to their attention: (1) Plaintiff attempted suicide in August 2004 shortly after he was told he did not have GID; (2) he first attempted castration in October 2005; (3) he tried again and succeeded at self-castration several weeks later; (4) Plaintiff's reason for cutting off his testicles was that he felt he is transgender and "could not stand the sight of them [any] more"; (5) Plaintiff tried to change his name to a female name beginning in December 2003, and successfully obtained a legal name change to "Jenniffer Ann Spencer" occurring in October 2006; (6) Plaintiff filed this lawsuit to attempt to obtain treatment for GID; (7) Dr. Richard B. Christensen, an endocrinologist, stated that Plaintiff recounted a "long history of gender dysphoria," and that he took birth control pills approximately one month before his incarceration to try to obtain feminizing effects from the hormones; (8) Plaintiff disclosed additional personal history consistent with a GID diagnosis in his deposition and in evaluations with Dr. Christensen, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Taylor that Plaintiff had not disclosed to Dr. Khatain and Dr. Sombke for their original diagnoses; (9) Plaintiff's apparent mental health stability may arise from his satisfaction with resulting feminizing effects resulting from self-castration and the hope of obtaining relief through litigation; and (10) Dr. Christensen has opined that irreversible bone density loss caused by hypogonadism would likely start to occur one and one-half (1.5) years after self-castration, and Plaintiff is now beyond that date.
Similarly, while Defendants seem to have identified the fact that Plaintiff has a significant mental health issue regarding gender identity or confusion, there is little in the MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 27

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 28 of 37
record to show that they have provided adequate psychotherapy or other counseling to address that issue. Rather, they seem to have consciously disregarded it.
Gender is an overwhelming feature of a human being's life. The choice between male hormone therapy and female hormone therapy charts a course for an inmate to develop the characteristics of either a male or a female. As a result of the significance of the decision about which type of hormone is appropriate for Plaintiff and the lack of mental health treatment that has been provided to Plaintiff to help him make this decision, the Court finds that Plaintiff has a fair chance of prevailing on his claim that psychotherapy is necessary.
The Court finds a probability that Plaintiff can prove the necessary facts at trial to prevail on the narrow issue that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his need for psychotherapy on his significant gender issues after the self-castration. In particular, the record shows the following.
Plaintiff has individual therapy sessions with Dr. Green, but such therapy is not aimed at helping determine whether Plaintiff has GID or what type of hormone treatment is appropriate for Plaintiff in light of the castration. Dr. Green notes that "[Gammett] is] [v]ery careful not to mention anything about [the] pending lawsuit." Sharlene Green Affidavit, Exhibit A, p. 22 (Docket No. 154). Another note from September 12, 2006 (post-castration), states that Dr. Green "[e]xplained again that he is not GID and as such plan focuses on prison adjustment." Id., p. 24. The CMS Treatment Plan from September 13, 2006, signed by Dr. Green states that a treatment goal is to "[k]eep GID issues out of MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 28

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 29 of 37
the groups." Id. at 26. Dr. Green is of the opinion that Gammett is now psychologically trapped by his own cognitive distortions as he has removed his genitals. Psychologically, he must now balance that act against how he sees himself sexually. That is, he has no choice but to maintain a belief system that he is female.
Dr. Green Affidavit, ¶ 12 (Docket No. 154). However, it does not appear from Dr. Green's notes that Plaintiff has been offered any specific psychological counseling regarding Plaintiff's significant gender identity issues.9 Rather, Dr. Green encouraged Plaintiff to continue art therapy. In July 2004, Dr. Sombke had opined that Plaintiff "may benefit from some education and/or counseling regarding his sexual orientation issues,” see Dr. Sombke Affidavit, Exhibit C (Docket No. 153), and yet the record shows a surprising lack of education, counseling, or therapy on these highly important gender identity issues, especially after the self-castration.
In Phillips v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 731 F.Supp. 792 (D. Mich. 1990), where medical providers agreed that Plaintiff had a gender disorder, but disagreed as to the type, the Court granted a preliminary injunction ordering prison officials to provide the movant with estrogen therapy:
For the purposes of this preliminary injunction motion, I believe that plaintiff has shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits. Under the
9 Dr. Brown notes in his report: [G]ender dysphoria is a set of symptoms that include irritability, anxiety, and depression, sometimes accompanied by suicidal thinking and/or behavior. It is not a diagnosis. Even in the absence of a formal diagnosis of GID, the symptom complex of gender dysphoria should still be addressed in any comprehensive treatment plan. Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit D, p. 9 (Docket No. 136). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 29

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 30 of 37
facts before me on this motion, I find first that plaintiff suffers from a serious medical need, being deprived of treatment, whether the diagnosis is transsexualism or the gender identity disorder of adolescence or adulthood, non-transsexual type. The medical experts on gender agreed that Marty Phillips is gender dysphoric, and Dr. Dickey testified that transsexualism and GIDAANT were closely related disorders. The essence of both disorders result in a human who experiences distress about one of the most striking parts of our identity-whether we are male or female. The medical testimony was clear that transsexualism and GIDAANT are serious psychiatric disorders with profound emotional and physical effects.
Id. at 800.
Similarly, here, the Court finds and concludes that whether Plaintiff has "Sexual
Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (Dr. Sombke's diagnosis, with concurrence by Dr.
Khatain), GID (Dr. Brown's diagnosis), or lack of a "choice but to maintain a belief
system that he is female" (Dr. Green's opinion), Plaintiff has shown that he has a fair
chance of success on the merits of his claim that, by not offering education or counseling
post-castration, Defendants have chosen a course of treatment that is medically
unacceptable under the circumstances and have done so in conscious disregard of an
excessive risk to Plaintiff's health.
G. Whether Plaintiff Has Shown that the Balance of Hardships Tips Sharply in Plaintiff's Favor
The next part of the test is whether Plaintiff has brought forward sufficient
evidence showing that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. It is undisputed
that male hormones will reverse the feminizing effects of Plaintiff's self-castration. The
stated object of Plaintiff's self-castration was to relieve the mental distress caused by his
male genitals. Plaintiff has submitted the testimony of Dr. Brown that testosterone
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 30

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 31 of 37
therapy would be affirmatively harmful to Plaintiff: It cannot be over-emphasized that testosterone is contraindicated in a
natal male with severe GID. It is more likely than not that the administration of intramuscular testosterone in this inmate would lead to increased gender dysphoria, desperateness, depression and suicidality, with a high degree of medical certainty. Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit D, pp. 21-22 (Docket No. 136). Dr. Brown has also opined that estrogen therapy has "therapeutic benefits beyond the physical manifestations of the hormone effect," and will provide "mood stability," "a decrease in mental health illness," relief from "anxiety," and "improved self-esteem." Id., Exhibit B, p. 4. In contrast, Defendants have submitted no report or analysis showing that they have determined what the psychological and emotional impact testosterone treatment or estrogen treatment would have on Plaintiff. In the face of no submission of this kind by Defendants, Plaintiff has met the burden to show that the balance of hardships tips sharply in Plaintiff's favor. GID, left untreated, is a life-threatening mental health condition. As an adolescent, Plaintiff inserted a large needle into his penis, and as a young adult, he attempted to commit suicide after Plaintiff was told that IDOC medical providers did not believe he had GID. Thereafter, Plaintiff attempted to cut off his testicles, and then successfully performed self-castration while in prison. Plaintiff told Dr. Brown that Plaintiff's suicide attempts in prison were related to hopelessness in obtaining GID treatment, sometimes combined with other stressors. Plaintiff is confident he can commit suicide at the prison if properly planned. Jorjani Affidavit, Exhibit D, pp. 11-12 (Docket No. 136). Dr. Brown
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 31

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 32 of 37
has opined that "[w]ithholding hormone therapy can lead to continued depression, suicidal ideation, and self-injury." Id., Exhibit B, p. 4.
Dr. Green is aware that there is an additional risk of self-mutilation if Plaintiff's hopes of obtaining treatment for GID are not resolved through litigation. Dr. Green's notes from an individual session with Plaintiff indicate that he had reported to another staff member that his lawyers had quit, and that the staff member had talked to him about the matter "as we want to be certain he is able to handle negative events without selfmutilation." Id., p. 35. Plaintiff also stated in deposition that he has not told his treating doctors that he "contemplate[s] suicide quite a bit." Deposition of Plaintiff, p. 314 (Docket No. 158).
Hypgonadism, left untreated, leaves Plaintiff at immediate risk of bone density loss and other complications more particularly set forth above. There is no evidence before the Court that female hormones have, in fact, proved harmful to male subjects who are no longer producing testosterone, like Plaintiff, especially when the psychological and mental factors of GID are taken into consideration. Further, the effects of hormone replacement therapy are reversible.
Defendants have not identified any particular harm or loss they would suffer if Plaintiff's Motion is granted. Plaintiff is willing to sign a release accepting the risks of treatment and releasing Defendants from liability for medical malpractice-type claims related to the administration of female hormones. Plaintiff is willing to live in administrative segregation indefinitely if that is what is necessary for prison security MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 32

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 33 of 37
concerns. Plaintiff will be incarcerated for only another two years, and this litigation may well consume that entire time. Finally, Defendants are administering female hormones to other inmates in the male incarceration facilities, and, therefore, there is no argument to be made that this cannot be done in Plaintiff's case. H. Conclusion
The Court finds this case analogous to the facts in Warsoldier, where the Ninth Circuit determined that a preliminary injunction was appropriate. There, prison officials continued to punish Warsoldier for failing to cut his hair, even though Warsoldier alleged that his religious beliefs prevented him from cutting his hair. Prison officials argued that notwithstanding the punishments, Warsoldier was still "free to exercise his religion on all respects." 418 F.3d at 996. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, noting that "[s]uch an argument flies in the face of Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent that clearly hold that punishments to coerce a religious adherent to forgo her or his religious beliefs is an infringement on religious exercise." Id.
Here, similarly, Defendants argue that because they have offered some hormone treatment, albeit harmful hormone treatment under the circumstances, they have met the Eighth Amendment standard. Plaintiff should be forced to accept male hormones or accept the consequences of having no hormones, they argue. In light of Plaintiff's significant mental health issues and the lack of a comprehensive and meaningful reevaluation of Plaintiff after his self-castration, the "choice" offered to Plaintiff is really no choice at all. Plaintiff has shown a fair chance of prevailing on the merits of a deliberate MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 33

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 34 of 37
indifference claim based on the theory that prison doctors have offered only a medically unacceptable course of treatment post-castration, "in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d at 1058.
The Court concludes that, here, as in Phillips, "[p]rior to trial, the effects of the lack of estrogen [or here, to provide Plaintiff only with testosterone] will wreak havoc on plaintiff's physical and emotional state. Such harm is neither compensable nor speculative." 731 F.Supp. at 800. The Court also concludes that the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff will enable him to maintain his physical and mental health pending trial of this case.
Based on all of the foregoing, the Court shall grant Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. While the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard is difficult to meet, Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to meet his burden under the alternative preliminary injunction standard on the narrow issue of whether his current medical treatment is appropriate under the circumstances. In Alameda County v. Weinberger, 520 F.2d 344 (9th Cir. 1975), the Court explained:
To justify a temporary injunction it is not necessary that the plaintiff's right to a final decision, after a trial, be absolutely certain, wholly without doubt; if the other elements are present (i.e., the balance of hardship tips decidedly toward plaintiff), it will ordinarily be enough that plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation. Id. at 350 n.12. In other words, "'the greater the relative hardship to [the moving party], the less probability of success must be shown.'" Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 34

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 35 of 37
994 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff's evidence meets these standards.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has raised serious questions going to the merits
of the claims, such that a jury could find in Plaintiff's favor that Plaintiff's medical
providers were deliberately indifferent to a serious mental health condition. The Court
concludes that Plaintiff has a fair chance of prevailing on the merits of his claim that he
should have been re-evaluated and should have received appropriate mental health
treatment for gender disphoria, GID, and other gender-based psychological issues after
the time of his self-castration.
I. Remedy
The Court's final task is to determine the relief to be granted for the period of time
prior to trial. The Court is aware that injunctive relief should be narrow:
Injunctive relief against a state agency or official must be no broader than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation. See Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977) (remedy must be related to condition alleged to offend the constitution). . . . . In fashioning a remedy for constitutional violations, a federal court must order effective relief. Smith v. Sullivan, 611 F.2d 1039, 1044 (5th Cir.1980). Therefore, a federal court may order relief that the Constitution would not of its own force initially require if such relief is necessary to remedy a constitutional violation. See North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43, 46, 91 S.Ct. 1284, 1286, 28 L.Ed.2d 586 (1971); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. at 15-16, 91 S.Ct. at 1276.
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the Court shall order Defendants who have responsibility for Plaintiff's
current welfare and health care to provide Plaintiff with appropriate female hormone
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 35

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 36 of 37
therapy and psychotherapy to address Plaintiff's gender identity issues, and, where applicable, to comply with IDOC's policies and directives. Defendants shall notify the Court within ten (10) days of this Order if they are unable to procure a prescription from an Idaho-licensed doctor for the hormone or provide psychotherapy to address Plaintiff's gender identity issues.
ORDER NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 134) is GRANTED. Defendants who have responsibility for Plaintiff's current welfare and health care are to provide Plaintiff with appropriate female hormone therapy and psychotherapy to address Plaintiff's gender identity issues, and, where applicable, to comply with IDOC's policies and directives. Defendants shall notify the Court within ten (10) days of this Order if they are unable to procure a prescription from an Idaho-licensed doctor for the hormone or provide psychotherapy to address Plaintiff's gender issues. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Expedited Motion to Augment Record re: Preliminary Injunction Motion (Docket No. 227) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Docket No. 160) is GRANTED.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 36

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 230 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 37 of 37 DATED: July 27, 2007 Honorable Mikel H. Williams United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 37

 
 Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 20
Lea C. Cooper 3227 Morris Hill Rd. Boise, Idaho 83 706 (208) 433-9271
Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RANDALL GAMMETT,

) c•vos- 257- s- MHW
)

Plaintiff,

) Case No.

)

vs.

) COMPLAINT AND DEMAND

)

IDAHO STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS; ) FOR JURY TRIAL

CAROLYN MELINE, RALPH TOWNSEND, )

DWIGHT BOARD, nM TIBBS and JAY

)

NIELSEN, individually and in their official capacity )

as members of the Idaho State Board of Corrections; )

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; )

THOMAS BEAUCLAIR, individually and in his )

official capacity as Director ofldaho Department of )

Corrections [IDOC]; DAVID HAAS, individually )

and in his official capacity as Medical Services

)

Manager for IDOC; KEVIN KEMPH, individually )

and in his official capacity as Warden ofldaho

)

Correctional Institute at Orofmo [ICIO];

)

KRUZICH, M.D., individually and in his official )

capacity as Treating Physician at ICIO;

)

FLERCHINGER, M.D., individually and in his )

official capacity as Treating Physician at ICIO; )

EDWARD CHEENEY, M.S., individually and in )

COMPLAINT- 1

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 20

his official capacity as Social Worker at ICIO;

)

DEBI TITUS, RN., individually and in her official )

capacity as Inmate Nurse at ICIO; GREGORY

)

FISHER, individually and in his official capacity )

as Warden ofldaho Maximwn Security Institute )

[IMSI]; K. G. KHATAIN, M.D., individually and )

in his official capacity as Chief Psychiatrist at IMSI )

and Member of the Management and Treatment )

Committee [MTC] for evaluation and treatment of )

inmates with Gender Identity Disorder [GID];

)

CHAD SOMBKE, PhD., individually and in his )

official capacity as Chief Psychologist at IMSI and )

Member of the MTC; JAY A. GREEN, individually )

and in his official capacity as Sargeant in charge of )

C-Block Medical Unit at IMSI and Member of the )

MTC; JOSLYN PATCHETTE, individually and in )

her official capacity as Nurse at IMSI and Member )

of the MTC; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES [PHS],)

a corporation doing business in the State ofldaho, )

)

_________________D_ef_en_d_an_ts_. ____ ) )

Plaintiff Randall Garnmett, by counsel, brings this action to obtain redress for the deprivation of his federally and state protected rights, as hereafter alleged.
I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff Randall Garnmett is a citizen of the United States of America. He is currently a resident of the Idaho Correctional Institute at Orofino, Idaho [ICIO].
COMPLAINT - 2

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 3 of 20
2. Defendant Idaho State Board of Corrections is a political subdivision of the state ofldaho, as defined in Idaho Code Section 20-201.
3. Defendants Meline, Townsend, Board, Tibbs and Nielsen were at all times material hereto or are currently duly appointed members of the Idaho State Board of Correction, and were acting within the course and scope oftheir duties as members and as the agents, servants and employees of the State ofldaho.
4. Defendant Idaho State Board of Corrections is responsible pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-209 for the control, direction and management of correctional facilities and for the provision of care and maintenance for all prisoners in state custody.
5. Defendant Idaho State Board of Corrections is responsible pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-214 for the training, employment, and fixing of duties for all assistants, officers and other persons necessary for the proper and efficient administration of IDOC.
6. Defendant IDOC is a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, as defined in Idaho Code Section 20-201.
7. Defendant Thomas Beauclair was at all times material hereto the duly appointed Director of IDOC as well as chief administrative officer and business manager of the state penitentiary pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-217A, and was employed by IDOC and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as director, chief administrative officer and business manager and as the agent, servant and employee of the State ofldaho.
COMPLAINT - 3

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 4 of 20
8. Defendant David Haas was at all times material hereto the Medical Services Manager at IDOC, and was employed by IDOC and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as manager and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho.
9. Defendant Kevin Kemph was at all times material hereto the Warden ofiCIO,
and employed by moe, and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as
warden and as the agent, servant and employee of the State ofldaho. 10. Defendants Kruzich, Flerchinger, Cheeney, Titus, Khatain and Sombke
are either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at moe or are employed directly by moe to provide medical services to inmates or are employed by PHS, and
were acting within the course and scope of their duties as medical service providers and as the agents, servants and employees of the State ofldaho.
11. Defendant Gregory Fisher was at all times material hereto the Warden of
IMSI and employed by moe, and was acting within the course and scope of his duties
as warden and as the agent, servant and employee of the State ofldaho. 12. Defendant Jay Green was at all times material hereto the Correctional Sargeant
of C-Block Medical Unit at IMSI, employed by !DOC, and a member of the MTC for evaluation and treatment of inmates suffering from GID, and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as correctional sargeant and MTC member and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho.
COMPLAINT- 4

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 5 of 20
13. Defendant Joslyn Patchette was at all times material hereto an inmate nurse either contracted to provide services for inmates at IMSI or employed by !DOC or PHS, and a member of the MTC for evaluation and treatment of inmates suffering from GID, and was acting within the course and scope of her duties as nurse and MTC member and as the agent, servant and employee of the State ofldaho.
14. Defendant Prison Health Services is a corporation doing business in the State ofldaho. Prison Health Services provides medical services for !DOC.
15. Each and all of the acts of Defendants alleged herein were done by Defendants not just as individuals, but under the color of law and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, practices and usages of the State of Idaho, and under the authority of Defendants as public officials for said state.
16. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, particularly under the provisions of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and under federal law, particularly Title 42 of the United States Code, Sections 1983 and 1988.
17. This Court has jurisdiction of this cause under and by virtue of Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1331, because the case arises under the Constitution and laws ofthc United States, and Section 1343, because this action seeks redress and damages for violation of Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988, and the federal claim is not insubstantial.
COMPLAINT - 5

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 6 of 20
18. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff's pendent state claims by virtue of Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1367.
19. Plaintiff has complied with the statutory notice provisions of Section 6-906, Idaho Code, regarding t he state law claims.
20. Defendant Idaho Department of Corrrection denied Plaintiff's Tort Claim through their agent, Idaho Risk Management Program.
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
21. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 above. 22. In September of2003, Plaintiff Randall Garmnett was in state custody at the Idaho Department of Corrections facility at Orofino [ICIO]. 23. On September 11, 2003, Plaintiff submitted an Inmate Request Form (hereinafter "kite") requesting copies of the policies relating to Gender Identity Disorder [GID]. The response from Defendant Titus was that Plaintiff would need to fill out an ''Access to Courts Request" in order to be allowed to read the policies, as they were not available to the public. Plaintiff was charged for copies ofthe policies. 24. On September 11, 2003, Plaintiff submitted an Inmate Concern (hereinafter "kite") asking "what I am susposto [sic] do about my gender identity issue." 25. On September 13, 2003, Plaintiff submitted a Health Services Request Form
COMPLAINT- 6

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 7 of 20
(hereinafter "kite") stating "I have GID problem". 26. On September 14, 2003, Plaintiff submitted a kite stating "I feel that I
have a Gender Identity Disorder.", and further describing the need and desire to become a woman.
27. On September 16, 2003, Plaintiff submitted a kite asking "how my body is going to change... what are the side effects... How long does this treatment last?... will there be any surgical transformation done?"
28. On September 23, 2003, Plaintiff was given a physical examination by a doctor.
29. On September 26,2003, Plaintiff's file was reviewed by Edward Cheeney, M.S., for indications of GID. Defendant Cheeney found no indication of GID.
30. On September 30, 2003, Plaintiff requested to be seen regarding a list of 19
questions relating to GID. Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Titus who could not answer
many of the questions, but educated Plaintiff on how a person develops values. 31. On October 18, 2003, Plaintiff submitted a kite asking, "what is going on with
my issue." 32. On November 11, 2003, Plaintiff submitted a kite which stated, "I would like
to know when I will be starting my treatment!" 33. On November 28, 2003, Plaintiff submitted a kite stating, "I would like to
know what it is that I'm susposto [sic] do. Should I put a request in to see the
COMPLAINT - 7

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 8 of 20
psychologist about my issue or what should I do?" 34. On December 2, 2003, Plaintiff was informed by Defendant Titus that the
"Treatment team may be here the 2-3'd week of December to see you." 35. On January 5, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a kite asking why the Treatment
Team was taking so long to come to Orofino and asking whether the medical department knew when they would visit.
36. On January 9, 2004, Plaintiff was informed by Defendant Titus that the
December meetings had been cancelled and that she had no further information for him.
37. On January 20, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a kite stating that "I was susposto [sic] see the Treatment Team today and it was canceld [sic]. I was told it was rescheduled, could you tell me when please? Thank you."
38. On January 22, 2004, Defendant Titus informed Plaintiff"You are not sch. for the treatment team, you are sch. to see our new psycvhiatrist on 01-22-04 for an interview."
39. On January 27,2004, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Flerchinger at ICIO. Defendant Flerchinger interviewed Plaintiff regarding GID and concluded that Plaintiff was confused but not convincing regarding GID.
40. On April24, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request asking again about the Treatment Committee.
41. On May 15, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request asking, "Do you know
COMPLAINT - 8

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 9 of 20
what the hold up is? It's been almost a year well8 months since I started this process.". The kite asked further whether it was appropriate for Plaintiff to shave body hair and pluck eyebrows and stated, "it is very frustrating. I feel like they are just brushing me off."
42. On May 21, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a kite asking about the GID Policy Directives, MTC composition and recommendations, informed consent for treatment, GID services available and stated, "I feel at the end of my 'rope' so to speak. I don't know what to do. I don't like the way I feel! I hate my self. I don't feel I'm being taken serious at all. All I want is help so that I don't have to feel the way I do."
43. On May 26,2004, Defendant Titus informed Plaintiff that to the best of her knowledge "there has been no recommendation for your case to date. The committee has not been picked yet" Defendant Titus further informed Plaintiff"! am sorry you feel at the end of you [sic] rope... Please remember this is not a life threating [sic] illness and I am sure it will be handled as soon as they are able. May I suggest you visit with Ms. Stammer to help you cope with this situation."
44. On June 16,2004, Plaintiff submitted a kite to Mrs. Whimpple [sic] stating "I was told to write you regaring [sic] my case. I would like to know if they have created a [sic] Administrative Treatment Team yet. I want to know when treatment might be possible. I've been waiting 9 months for information. I need to know!"
45. On June 22,2004, Plaintiff was informed by S. Whipple that "Medical
COMPLAINT- 9

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 10 of 20
has done the required steps to assist you. We kave know [sic] way to know when the treatment team will come to our facility. This would be IDOC policy- contact IDOC for more information."
46. On June 26, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a kite to David Haas, IDOC Medical Services Manager in Boise stating "I was told by a Mrs. Whipple to contact you about my concerns. I want to know what is going on with my case. I was told that you would be able to help me out. I'm also wanting to know who is on the Administrative Treatment Team. This regards my Gender Identity issue. Thank you."
47. On July 2, 2004, Defendant Haas responded to Plaintiff, "Your complaint is being addressed in accordance with IDOC policy."
48. On or about July 13,2004, Plaintiff was transferred to Idaho Maximum Security Institution [IMSI] in Boise. Plaintiff was not informed of the reason for transfer until after his arrival at IMSI.
49. On July 19,2004, Plaintiffwas interviewed by Chad Sombke, PhD., regarding GID. Defendant Sombke concluded that Plaintiffwas confused sexually yet did not appear to have GID.
50. On July 20, 2004, Dr. Khatain, Chief Psychiatrist at IMSI, reviewed Plaintiff's medical file, interviewed Plaintiff regarding GID and concluded that it was unclear whether Plaintiff fulfilled the criteria for GID.
51. Plaintiff was administered psychological tests and on July 21, 2004, it was
COMPLAINT- 10

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 11 of 20
concluded by Defendant Sombke, with Defendant Khatain concurring, that Plaintiffdid not meet the diagnostic criteria for GID but that Plaintiff might benefit from education and/or counseling regarding his sexual orientation.
52. Since July 21, 2004, Plaintiff has not received education and counseling regarding sexual orientation as recommended by Dr. Khatain.
53. On August 13, 2004, Plaintiff attempted suicide by hanging in his cell at IMSI.
54. On August 17, 2004, Plaintiff was provisionally diagnosed with bipolar disorder and medication with the psychotropic drug Lithium was initiated.
55. Plaintiff was hospitalized at Intermountain Hospital in Boise prior to incarceration, for mutilation of his genitals. Defendants were not only aware ofthis hospitalization but Defendant Kruzich, who treated Plaintiff at Intermountain Hospital, also saw Plaintiff for GID at Orofmo.
56. Plaintiff informed Defendant Khatain about having lived as a woman prior to incarceration.
57. Plaintiff informed Defendants Khatain and Sombke about going out numerous times in public dressed as a woman.
58. Plaintiff described to Defendant Khatain the feeling of having been born in the wrong body.
59. Plaintiff informed Defendant Khatain about having dressed as a female since
COMPLAINT - 11

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 12 of 20
being a small child. 60. Plaintiff took female hormones prior to incarceration. 61. Plaintiff represents to other inmates that she is transgendered. 62. On August 21, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a kite to Defendant Haas stating "I
want to know why I was told I don't have GID when I do have it. I want to know why I was not seen by a GID specialist? I want to be seen by a GID specialist and given my treatment for it!" The kite was not responded to.
63. On August 22, 2004, Plaintiff submitted another kite to Defendant Haas stating "I want to know why you are not following policiys [sic] concerning people who clame [sic] they have GID. I want to know why you don't have a GID specialist employed by the state. The only person who can diagnose GID is a specialist. Why are you not following your own procedures and policies?" The kite was not responded to.
64. In November, 2004, Plaintiff was transferred back to Orofmo and assessed for suicide risk by social worker Sandra McMichael.
65. On December 28, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a kite to Chad Sombke at IMSI, asking Defendant Sombke to explain why he does not think Plaintiff has GID.
66. On January 20,2005, Defendant Sombke responded to Plaintiff that "It was the opinion of four mental health professionals that you do not have GID"
67. On January 28, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a kite to Defendant Haas referring to Haas' written statement to Plaintiff that "The MTC determined that you do not meet the
COMPLAINT - 12

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 13 of 20
diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder." Plaintiff's kite asked, "Which criteria do I not meet? The DSM IVR or the HBGIDA? It seems to me that after I read both that my attitude, past and present behavior all point to my having GID. I also have proof from a hospital stating that I tried to mutilate myself because of emotional and mental problems. So I guess the question is how do I not meet the criteria for GID? And what criteria are you going by?"
68. On March 8, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a Grievance Form asking why he had not received a response from Defendant Haas so that he could proceed with legal recourse. The Grievance Form stated "This is a personal issue that I am trying to get help with and I am being eagnored [sic]. I'm tired of it."
69. Plaintiff's March 8, 2005 Grievance Form (designated as an "Appeal") and the
responses thereto was reviewed and replied to on April 5, 2005, by an unknown person
apparently employed by Prison Health Services. The response recommended that Plaintiff see Dr. Fleurchinger with any additional concerns or problems.
70. On March 26, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a kite to "Grivance [sic] Coordonater [sic]" stating "I want to know why when I sent a grievance to David Haas that he did not answer it. It's part of the grievance process. He needs to answer this grievance. I'm appealing it. I want his answer."
71. On April 5, 2005, Platiff's March 26, kite was responded to by L. Mechling. The reply stated "I don't know why he did not answer. However, your appeal does not
COMPLAINT - 13

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 14 of 20
go to Mr. Haas. Medical Grievance appeals go to PHS (Prison Health Services)". 72. IDOC Directive No. 401.06.03.501, Section 05.01.00, attached hereto as
Exhibit A, provides that "The diagnosis of GID will be based on the DSM IV criteria and the Harry Benjamin Standards, and must be assigned and/or approved by the Management and Treatment Committee." In the Psychological Evaluation which concluded in a fmding that Plaintiff does not suffer from GID, attached hereto as Exhibit B, there is no evidence that the MTC consulted the Harry Benjamin Standards.
73. IDOC Directive 401.06.03.501, Section 05.01.00, attached hereto as Exhibit A, provides that "The Management and Treatment Committee will be composed of the Medical Services Manager (chair), chief psychiatrist, chief psychologist, facility head and other mental health, human services and security staff..." While it is unclear who in fact comprised the MTC in Plaintiff's case, or if in fact an MTC was used at all, the two signatures on the Psychological Evaluation which concluded in a finding that Plaintiff does not suffer from GID (Exhibit B) are those of Defendant Sombke, Chief Psychologist, and Defendant Khatain, Chief Psychiatrist.
74. Plaintiff made numerous attempts to discover who the members of the MTC were, but was never given their names.
75. Plaintiff's attempted suicide after the Psychological Evaluation (Exhibit B) was a direct result of the conclusion reached therein by Defendants Sombke and Khatain.
76. Plaintiff informed Defendant Khatain and the IMSI medical staff that the
COMPLAINT- 14

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 15 of 20
reason for the attempted suicide was because of the GID diagnosis. 77. After attempting suicide Plaintiff was locked down at IMSI for 23 hours a
day in a single cell for 118 days, until transfer back to ICIO. 78. Defendants Sombke and Khatain have little or no expertise in diagnosing or
treating persons suffering from GID. 79. None ofthe medical personnel who have been involved in Plaintiff's care,
including Defendants named herein, have the experience, knowledge, credentials or expertise to diagnose or treat persons suffering from GID.
80. Several days following Plaintiff's diagnosis by Defendants Sombke and Khatain, Plaintiff heard from three corrections officers details ofwhat had occurred during the evaluation.
81. Plaintiffcontinues to suffer from suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, gender dysphoria, nightmares, insomnia, despair, hopelessness and thoughts of self-mutilation on a daily basis.
III. FEDERAL CLAIMS First Cause of Action
(42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
81. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 80 above. 82. Defendants' above-described delay in evaluating Plaintifffor a serious medical
COMPLAINT- 15

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 16 of 20
condition, their subsequent failure to follow policies in diagnosing and treating Plaintiff's condition which resulted in a misdiagnosis of Plaintiff's condition, and their ongoing failure to address Plaintiff's serious medical needs constitutes a deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
83. Defendants' aforementioned misconduct was a moving force and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffas set forth hereinbelow.
Second Cause of Action (42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
84. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 83 above. 85. Under Idaho law as described herein, Defendants Idaho Board of Correction, Carolyn Meline, Ralph Townsend, Dwight Board, Jim Tibbs and Jay Nielsen are responsible for the proper management and control of state correctional facilities and for the provision of care for all prisoners in state custody. Defendants know or should have known that medical care providers providing services to prisoners in IDOC custody are not qualified to diagnose or treat OlD. 86. Under Idaho law as described herein, Defendants Idaho Board of Correction,
COMPLAINT - 16

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 17 of 20
Carolyn Meline, Ralph Townsend, Dwight Board, Jim Tibbs and Jay Nielsen are responsible for the training and employment of all assistants, officers and other persons necessary for the proper administration of Defendant IDOC. Defendants know or should have known ofa custom, practice or usage of providing delayed and/or inadequate medical care to prisoners, particularly mental health care and more particularly treatment for GID, and therefore created a custom, practice or usage of delivery of constitutionally inadequate medical care to prisoners.
87. Said Defendants failed to provide adequate recruitment, retention, supervision and discipline policies relating to the delivery of medical care to prisoners, thereby creating within IDOC a custom or practice of tolerance toward the delivery of constitutionally inadequate medical care.
88. Defendants' aforementioned actions and omissions constituted a state policy, custom or persistent practice, which actions and omissions amounted to reckless or deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of prisoners.
89. Defendants' aforementioned state policy, custom, practice or usage, as well as their actions and omissions, deprived Plaintiff of constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
90. Defendants' aforementioned state policy, custom, practice or usage, as well as
COMPLAINT - 17

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 18 of 20
their actions and omissions, were a moving force and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiff as set forth hereinbelow.
Third Cause of Action (42 U.S.C. Section 1983) 91. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 90 above. 92. Said Defendants failed to provide adequate supervision of practices relating to the confidentiality of delivery of medical care to prisoners, specifically the GID evaluation performed upon Plaintiff at IMSI. 93. Defendants' aforementioned actions and omissions constituted a state policy, custom or persistent practice, which actions and omissions amounted to reckless or deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of prisoners. 94. Defendants' aforementioned state policy, custom, practice or usage, as well as their actions and omissions, deprived Plaintiff of constitutional rights, including the right to privacy guaranteed by the United States Constitution 95. Defendants' aforementioned state policy, custom, practice or usage, as well as their actions and omissions, were a moving force and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiff as set forth hereinbelow.
COMPLAINT- 18

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 19 of 20
IV DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS
96. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 95 above. 97. As a direct and proximate result ofthe actions and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff was deprived of constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the right to privacy guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
98. As a further direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered physical injuries from attempted suicide, severe emotional distress, mental pain and anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, depression, suicidal ideation, sleeplessness, and all to her general damage in an amount to be proved at trial.
V. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them as follows:
1. Compensatory and general damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial;
COMPLAINT - 19

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 2 Filed 06/30/05 Page 20 of 20

2. Punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial; 3. Reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, as well as costs of suit and interest; 4. An Order from this Court requiring the immediate evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of Plaintiff by a mental health professional with expertise in GID. 5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

DATED this ?;3

LEA4(&/JO~~ day ofJune, 2005. jl Attorney for Plaintiff

STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss.
County of Clearwater )

1 I, Randall Jason Ganunett, being first duly sworn on oath depose and say, that I am the
Plaintiff in the above-entitled case, that I have read the within and foregoing C plaint, that I know the contents thereof and that upon info f an. belief the facts her · stated are true

and correct.

fl
• 1 btUt.M{.. •

Subscribed and sworn before me this -2="'-3_.L..--

Residing at _(_.JL.t:tl::::i.c:i4...U~=c::Q.__ _--1~:.\;-~>"=-=--<..C
My Commission Expires .....1../6#1-c..JE/JUf')l>"'-"i...L.---~>T.!--B-&ilj_
COMPLAINT - 20

 
 Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 1 of 28

JAMES SCHURZ (pro hac vice) PARISA JORJANI (pro hac vice) MATHEW W. DOS SANTOS (pro hac vice) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Email: JSchurz@mofo.com
SHANNON P. MINTER (pro hac vice) JODY MARKSAMER (pro hac vice) NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS 870 Market St., Suite 370 San Francisco, CA, 94102 Telephone: (415) 392-6257 Facsimile: (415) 392-8442
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiff
J. WALTER SINCLAIR (ISB No. 2243) GREGORY C. TOLLEFSON (ISB No. 5643) BRADLEY J. DIXON (ISB No. 6167) STOEL RIVES LLP 101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1900 Boise, ID 83702-7705 Telephone: (208) 389-9000 Facsimile: (208) 389-9040
Local Counsel for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RANDALL GAMMETT aka Jenniffer Ann Spencer,

Case No. CV05-257-S-MHW

Pl

aintiff,

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.

IDAHO STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, CAROLYN MELINE, RALPH TOWNSEND, DWIGHT BOARD, JIM TIBBS, JAY NIELSEN, ROBIN SANDY, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

sf-2385688

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 28

THOMAS BEAUCLAIR, VAUGHN KILLEEN, GREGORY FISHER, JOHN HARDISON, KEVIN KEMPH, DAVID HAAS, DEBI TITUS, THOMAS KRUZICH, M.D., FRAUN FLERCHINGER, M.D., EDWARD CHEENEY, KENNETH G. KHATAIN, M.D., CHAD SOMBKE, Ph.D., MARY PERRIEN, SHARLENE GREEN, PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, and CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Randall Gammett aka Jenniffer Spencer,1 by counsel, brings this action to obtain redress for the deprivation of her federally and state protected rights, as hereinafter alleged.
INTRODUCTION 1. Jenniffer Spencer has been imprisoned in Idaho state prison since May 2000 for “theft by receiving or possessing stolen property” — specifically, possession of a stolen car. Ms. Spencer was not charged or convicted for stealing the car. Throughout her incarceration she has suffered from Gender Identity Disorder (“GID”), a serious medical condition characterized by: (1) a strong cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, of the other sex, and (2) a persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex. GID causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The most common form of treatment is hormonal therapy, which in this case would be estrogen, administered by a qualified professional. 2. She sought treatment for GID in September 2003, when she became aware that Defendant Idaho State Board of Corrections adopted a policy for the treatment of offenders with
1 Although Plaintiff was born a biological male, she identifies as female and wishes to be referred to using the feminine pronoun. She has changed her legal name to Jenniffer Ann Spencer. Accordingly, throughout this pleading, she will be referred to by the feminine pronoun.

sf-2385688

1

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 28
GID. Beginning in September 2003 through the filing of this lawsuit, Ms. Spencer submitted approximately 75 separate requests for treatment relating to GID.
3. Ms. Spencer’s requests fell on deaf ears. Despite her repeated requests, Defendants, the Idaho State Board of Corrections and its officers and agents, have shown deliberate, persistent indifference to her condition in violation of (1) the Idaho State Board of Corrections’ Directives relating to the care of offenders with GID and (2) the United States Constitution.
4. Specifically, Defendants failed to follow their own directives to apply appropriate standards of care as required under Idaho Department of Corrections Directive 01.06.03.501 to evaluate Ms. Spencer. Despite clear evidence suggesting gender dysphoria, Defendants failed to appoint qualified medical professionals to evaluate Ms. Spencer.
5. Upon learning that Defendants denied her treatment in August 2004, Ms. Spencer attempted suicide.
6. Following the suicide attempt, Ms. Spencer submitted 21 different inmate concern/request forms to Defendants requesting the reasoning behind Defendants’ declaration that she did not have GID. When she failed to receive a satisfactory explanation, Ms. Spencer filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court on June 30, 2005.
7. Still Defendants failed to respond. As a result of her inability to secure adequate treatment, Ms. Spencer attempted self-castration, cutting her scrotum with a razor blade. Ten days later, on October 19, 2005, she cut her scrotum again, this time removing her testicles and flushing them down the toilet. Attending prison guards discovered a note in her cell: “I cut my genitals off do [sic] to the facts that I am a transgendered individual and I could stand the sight of

sf-2385688

2

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 4 of 28
them no more. This is not a suicide attempt. This is simply a way for me to remmady [sic] my problem.”
8. As a result of her castration, Ms. Spencer is in need of hormone therapy to avoid a range of negative health effects. Specifically, hormone therapy is necessary to prevent osteoporosis, muscle mass loss, relative fat mass increase, and increased cardiovascular disease in patients without functioning ovaries or testicles. In a male-to-female transgender person, feminizing hormones can also improve mood stability, decrease mental illness, and relieve anxiety. Withholding hormone therapy can lead to continued depression, suicidal ideation, and self-injury.
9. Defendants recognize that Ms. Spencer requires hormone therapy but have refused to provide estrogen. Ms. Spencer brings this action for an order requiring that Defendants provide treatment of feminizing hormones and psychological counseling by a mental health professional with substantial training and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of persons with GID. Ms. Spencer further seeks an order appointing a medical or mental health professional with experience in the diagnosis and/or treatment of persons with GID to serve as a member of the Management and Treatment Committee for a minimum of one year, to ensure the proper implementation of the Court’s order as it relates to Ms. Spencer as well as the Department of Corrections’ own directives relating to GID.
PARTIES 10. Plaintiff Jenniffer Spencer is a citizen of the United States of America. She is currently a resident of the Idaho Maximum Security Institution at Boise, Idaho (“IMSI”). 11. Defendants Carolyn Meline, Ralph Townsend, Dwight Board, Jim Tibbs, Jay Nielsen, and Robin Sandy were or are currently duly appointed members of the Board of

sf-2385688

3

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 5 of 28
Correction, and were acting within the course and scope of their duties as members and as agents, servants and employees of the State of Idaho at all material times.
12. Defendant Thomas Beauclair was at all times material hereto and up until July 2006 the duly appointed Director of IDOC as well as chief administrative officer and business manager of the state penitentiary pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-217A. Defendant Beauclair was employed by IDOC, and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as director, chief administrative officer and business manager and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho at all material times.
13. Defendant Vaughn Killeen was appointed Director of IDOC in July 2006 as well as chief administrative officer and business manager of the state penitentiary pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-217A. Beginning July 2006, defendant Killeen was employed by IDOC, and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as director, chief administrative officer and business manager and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho at all material times.
14. Defendant Kevin Kemph was at all times material hereto the Warden of the Idaho Correctional Institution at Orofino (“ICIO”). Defendant Kemph was employed by IDOC, and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as warden and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho at all material times.
15. Defendant Gregory Fisher was at all times material hereto, and up until June 2005, Warden of the Idaho Maximum Security Institution (“IMSI”). Defendant Fisher was employed by IDOC and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as warden and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho at all material times.

sf-2385688

4

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 6 of 28
16. Defendant John Hardison, since June 2005, has been Warden of IMSI. Defendant Hardison was employed by IDOC and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as warden and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho at all material times.
17. Defendant David Haas was at all times material hereto the Medical Services Manager at IDOC. Defendant Haas was employed by IDOC and was acting within the course and scope of his duties as Medical Services Manager and as the agent, servant and employee of the State of Idaho at all material times.
18. Defendant Prison Health Services (“PHS”) is a corporation doing business in the State of Idaho. Pursuant to contractual agreement with IDOC, PHS provided medical services for IDOC inmates, including Plaintiff, until July 2005.
19. Defendant Correctional Medical Services (“CMS”) is a corporation doing business in the State of Idaho. Pursuant to contractual agreement with IDOC, CMS provided medical services for IDOC inmates, including Plaintiff, beginning July 2005.
20. Defendant Debi Titus was at all times material hereto the Health Services Administrator at IMSI, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Titus was acting within the course and scope of her duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant, and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.
21. Defendant Edward Cheeney was at all times material hereto a Clinician at ICIO, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Cheeney was acting within the course

sf-2385688

5

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 7 of 28
and scope of his duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant, and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.
22. Defendant Thomas Kruzich was at all times material hereto a treating physician at ICIO, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Kruzich was acting within the course and scope of his duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant, and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.
23. Defendant Fraun Flerchinger was at all times material hereto a treating physician at ICIO, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Flerchinger was acting within the course and scope of her duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant, and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.
24. Defendant Kenneth Khatain was at all times material hereto Chief Psychiatrist at IMSI, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Khatain was acting within the course and scope of his duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant, and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.
25. Defendant Chad Sombke was, until the end of 2005, Chief Psychologist at IMSI, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Sombke was acting within the course

sf-2385688

6

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 8 of 28
and scope of his duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.
26. Defendant Mary Perrien has been, since the end of 2005, Chief Psychologist at IMSI, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Perrien was acting within the course and scope of her duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.
27. Defendant Sharlene Green has been, since spring of 2006, a psychologist at IMSI, either under contract to provide medical services for inmates at IDOC, or employed directly by IDOC to provide medical services to inmates. Defendant Green was acting within the course and scope of her duties as a medical service provider to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff) and as the agent, servant and employee of PHS, CMS, and/or the State of Idaho at all material times.
28. Each and all of the acts of Defendants alleged herein were done by Defendants not just as individuals, but under the color of law and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, practices and usages of the State of Idaho, and under the authority of Defendants as public officials for the State of Idaho.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 29. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, particularly under the provisions of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and under federal law, particularly 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988. 30. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this cause under Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1331, because the case arises under the Constitution and laws of the

sf-2385688

7

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 9 of 28

United States, and Section 1343, because this action seeks redress and damages for violation of Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988, and the federal claims are not insubstantial. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s pendent state claims under Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1367.
31. This Court has personal jurisdiction because, on information and belief, each Defendant is domiciled within the State of Idaho.
32. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291(b) because, on information and belief, Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Conviction for Possession of Stolen Property and Incarceration 33. On July 26, 1999, Jenniffer was arrested by the Owyhee County, Idaho Police, for possession of a stolen vehicle. The Owyhee County Court, Third Judicial District, found that the vehicle had been stolen by another person from the Portland, Oregon Airport and given to Ms. Spencer to use. Jenniffer admitted to police that she knew the vehicle was stolen and was taken into custody. 34. Observing that Ms. Spencer was unable to pay any of the $13,000 in restitution to the owner of the car, she was sentenced for evaluation at the Northern Idaho Correctional Institution (“NICI”) in Cottonwood. NICI is a program-specific prison designed for male offenders sentenced to a retained jurisdiction commitment by the court. It provides a sentencing alternative for the courts to target offenders who might, after a period of programming and evaluation, be viable candidates for probation rather than incarceration. 35. On May 25, 2000, Ms. Spencer escaped from the Cottonwood facility and was apprehended two days later in Lewiston, Idaho.

sf-2385688

8

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 10 of 28

36. As a result of the attempted escape, Ms. Spencer was transferred to the Idaho State Correctional Institution Orofino to serve a nine year sentence (six years for possession of stolen property and a three year enhancement for escape). Currently, Plaintiff is incarcerated at IDOC’s IMSI facility in Boise, where she has been held in the psychiatric unit (known as “CBlock”) since October 2005.
Plaintiff Jenniffer Spencer’s Requests for Treatment 37. In August 2003, Defendant IDOC instituted certain policies relating to the treatment of offenders suffering from GID. On September 11, 2003, Ms. Spencer submitted her first request for information relating to the treatment of GID seeking copies of the policies. 38. After September 2003, Ms. Spencer submitted multiple requests for medical and psychiatric attention with regards to her gender dysphoria. Examples of those communications include:
a) On September 14, 2003, Ms. Spencer submitted a written health services request stating “I feel that I have a Gender Identity Disorder. I Feel that I need to Become a Women [sic]. I want to becom [sic] a women! [sic]”
b) On April 24, 2004, Ms. Spencer submitted a written request to Defendant Titus inquiring about the composition of the Treatment Committee, including the involvement of the Director.
c) On August 21, 2004, Ms. Spencer submitted a request to Defendant Haas stating “I want to know why I was told I Dont [sic] Have GID when I do have it. I want to know why I was Not seen by A GID specialist? I want to be seen by A GID specialist and Given my Treatment for it.” Defendants failed to respond.
d) On August 22, 2004, Plaintiff submitted another request to Defendant Haas stating “I want to know why you are not following policiys [sic] concerning people who clame

sf-2385688

9

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 11 of 28
[sic] they have GID. [ ] Why are you not following your own procedures and policies?” Defendants failed to respond.
e) On March 8, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a Grievance Form asking why she had not received a response from Defendant Haas so that she could proceed with legal recourse. The Grievance Form stated “This is a personal issue that I am trying to get help with and I am being eagnored [sic]. I’m tired of it.” Finding IDOC’s response insufficient, Plaintiff appealed. In response, on April 5, 2005, IDOC found that Plaintiff had been “evaluated appropriately” and that “a reasonable decision” had been made.
39. Ms. Spencer also submitted a number of requests to IDOC, IMSI, PHS, and CMS staff, specifically inquiring about the status of treatment for her GID condition. Defendants, however, continuously delayed in evaluating Plaintiff for GID, failed to provide appropriate medical care, and continue to do so today. Examples of Plaintiff’s communications include:
a) On January 5, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request asking why the Treatment Team was taking so long to come to Orofino and asking whether the medical department knew when they would visit. On January 9, 2004, Plaintiff was informed by Defendant Titus that the December meetings had been cancelled and that she had no further information.
b) Four months later, on May 15, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request to Defendant Titus asking, “Do you know what the hold up is? It’s been Almost a year well 8 months since I started this process.” She asked further whether it was appropriate for Plaintiff to shave body hair and pluck eyebrows and stated, “it is very Frustrating. I feel like they are Just Brushing me off.”
c) On May 21, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request asking about the GID Policy Directives, MTC composition and recommendations, informed consent for treatment, and GID

sf-2385688

10

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 12 of 28

services available and stated, “I feel at the End of my ‘rope’ so to speak. I don’t know what to do. I don’t like the way I feel! I hate my self. I don’t feel I’m being taken serious at all. All I want is help so that I don’t have to feel the way I do.”
d) Eleven months after her initial request, on August 10, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a request to Defendant Sombke stating “You said that you would talk to me. I would like to know what is going on with my case! I feel like I’m being ignored and I want to know why? I feel like maby [sic] I need to do something drastic to get your attention. Do I have to?”
40. Defendants have been aware of Ms. Spencer’s serious medical condition since at least September 2003. Plaintiff repeatedly stated to Defendants, as well as other prison staff and medical providers, that she believed she was a woman trapped in a man’s body. Plaintiff also presented herself to other inmates as a woman and requested that they refer to her by her now legal name “Jenniffer” or “Jen.” Defendants have also been aware that Plaintiff attempted suicide on August 14, 2004, attempted to castrate herself on October 9, 2005, and actually castrated herself on October 19, 2005.
Standard of Care for Offenders with GID 41. Defendants are required to follow a standard of care for the diagnosis and treatment of offenders with GID. Defendants failed to do so. 42. The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association’s Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders (“Standards of Care”) articulate the professional consensus about the psychiatric, psychological, medical, and surgical management of gender identity disorders. According to the Standards of Care, after a diagnosis of GID is made by a competent mental health professional, the therapeutic approach usually includes the administration of hormones of the desired gender and a real-life experience in the desired gender role. Further according to the Standards of Care, cross-sex hormonal treatments are often medically necessary

sf-2385688

11

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 13 of 28
for patients suffering from GID. Not only do they improve the quality of life, but they also limit psychiatric co-morbidity (the development of additional mental disorders), which often accompanies lack of treatment. In some patients, hormonal therapy alone may provide sufficient symptomatic relief to obviate the need for “cross-living.” Defendant IDOC has adopted the Harry Benjamin standards for the diagnosis and treatment of GID.
43. In addition, Defendants failed to follow their own directives for the diagnosis and treatment of offenders with GID. IDOC Directive 401.06.03.501, entitled “Health Care Services for Offenders with Gender Identity Disorder,” governs the “treatment of offenders with [GID] and shall define the extent and general limits of health care services provided to offenders identified as meeting the criteria for diagnosis of [GID].” Section 05.01.00 of this Directive provides that the “diagnosis of GID will be based on the DSM IV criteria and the Harry Benjamin Standards, and must be assigned and/or approved by the Management and Treatment Committee.” The Directive further provides that the MTC “shall conduct an evaluation of each offender considered and develop and recommend a treatment plan for each offender diagnosed. The treatment plan will be based on a review of any previous diagnosis and treatment, the offender’s current treatment potential and the effects of change in treatment. The treatment plan shall address medical, mental health, placement and personal adjustment needs.”
44. The Directive further provides that MTC is composed of the Medical Services Manager, the chief psychiatrist, the chief psychologist, the facility head (who, upon information and belief, is the warden), and other mental health, human services and security staff. According to this Directive, the MTC may also consult with “a medical specialist in the treatment of offenders with GID (such as an endocrinologist or psychiatrist).”

sf-2385688

12

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 14 of 28
45. According to the Directive, the MTC “shall forward its recommendation for treatment and placement of offenders with GID to the Administrative Review Committee” (“ARC”). The ARC shall review the recommendation of the MTC, and “may, at its discretion, consult a medical specialist in the treatment of persons with Gender Identity Disorder, such as an endocrinologist or psychiatrist.” The ARC then shall “submit its recommendation for placement, together with the recommendation of the [MTC], to the Director, who shall have final authority for placement.”
46. At no time did Defendants actually comply with the requirements of their own directives or the Harry Benjamin standards adopted by Defendant IDOC.
Plaintiff Ms. Spencer Receives Inadequate Treatment 47. Despite their knowledge of Plaintiff’s serious medical condition and Plaintiff’s requests for diagnosis and treatment, Defendants failed to provide medical care for her GID condition. Examples of Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s serious medical condition and their deliberate failure to provide medical care despite repeated signs of GID include:
(a) Plaintiff was hospitalized at Intermountain Hospital in Boise prior to incarceration, for mutilation of her genitals. Not only were Defendants aware of this hospitalization, but Defendant Kruzich, who treated Plaintiff at Intermountain Hospital, also saw Plaintiff for GID at ICIO.
(b) On September 26, 2003, Plaintiff’s file was reviewed by Edward Cheeney, M.S., a clinician at ICIO, for indications of GID. Defendant Cheeney summarized his findings in a one-paragraph medical memo, in which he stated that he found no indication of GID.

sf-2385688

13

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 15 of 28
(c) On September 30, 2003, Plaintiff requested to be seen regarding a list of 19 detailed questions relating to GID. Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Titus who could not answer many of the questions, but instead educated Plaintiff on how a person develops values.
(d) On January 27, 2004, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Flerchinger at ICIO regarding GID. Defendant Flerchinger noted that Plaintiff had “felt like this for a long time,” had always been treated like her sisters, feels like a woman, in dreams is a woman, and felt normal when dressed in female clothing. Defendant Flerchinger concluded that Plaintiff was confused but not convincing regarding GID, and thus did not meet the criteria for GID. Defendant Flerchinger further concurred with Defendant Cheeney’s memorandum of September 26, 2003.
(e) On July 20, 2004, Defendant Khatain examined Plaintiff for GID. In a memorandum summarizing his conclusions, Defendant Khatain stated that “[t]here were definite references throughout [Plaintiff’s] chart over the last few years . . . that he feels that he is a woman and would like to have his sex changed surgically etc.” He further stated that Plaintiff “stated ‘I feel like I am a woman trapped in a man’s body.’” Dr. Khatain concluded that it was “unclear if he does or does not fulfill criteria for a gender identity disorder.” He further concluded that “there are no other current disorders.”
(f) On August 11, 2004, in response to Plaintiff’s request inquiring about the status of her case, Defendant Sombke informed Plaintiff that she would be going back to ICIO. Three days later, Plaintiff attempted suicide by hanging. In a “Mental Health Services Crisis Intervention” report regarding the suicide attempt, Defendant Sombke notes that Plaintiff “was just told he does not have GID and will be returned to ICIO.”

sf-2385688

14

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 16 of 28
(g) On August 17, 2004, Defendant Khatain examined Plaintiff regarding the suicide attempt. Despite his conclusion only a month earlier that Plaintiff had no current disorders, Defendant Khatain diagnosed Plaintiff with bipolar disorder and placed Plaintiff on Lithium, a mood stabilizer. On November 3, 2004, Defendant Khatain noted in a psychiatric consultation report that Plaintiff was doing well on Lithium and “is no longer fixated on the gender issue.” Defendant Khatain misdiagnosed Ms. Spencer and failed to treat the underlying GID.
(h) On October 9, 2005, Plaintiff ingested 30 Tylenol tablets and attempted to castrate herself by making an incision in the scrotum with a razor blade. Plaintiff was placed on suicide watch, and was asked to and did sign a “Suicide Contract” agreeing not to make any further suicide attempts, gestures, or threats. On October 10, 2005, Dorothy Brandt, a clinician at ICIO, met with Plaintiff regarding the suicide attempt. During the interview, Plaintiff stated that the reason she was depressed was due to the lack of treatment for her GID condition. Ms. Brandt did not respond or discuss the GID issue with Plaintiff. In her report, Ms. Brandt noted that Plaintiff was back on her medication, and that she appeared to be at a lower risk for suicide. According to the report, she educated Plaintiff on “normalizing being depressed to a certain degree on his birthday,” and discussed education therapy groups with Plaintiff. The report lacks any reference to Plaintiff’s GID issues.
(i) On October 19, 2005, Plaintiff castrated herself using a razor blade, and flushed her testicles down the toilet. She left a note regarding the incident stating: “I cut my genitals off do [sic] to the fact that I am a transgender individual and I could stand the sight of them no more. This is not a suicide attempt. This is simply a way for me to remmady [sic] my problem.” Plaintiff also explained her intention on the day of the incident. When asked why she

sf-2385688

15

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 17 of 28
had caused pain to herself, Plaintiff responded that it was much more painful to live as a transgender.
(j) On November 8, 2005, Plaintiff met with Defendant Khatain for a psychiatric assessment. Defendant Khatain noted in his report that Plaintiff was recently sent to IMSI after self-castration, and was being seen “primarily to assess his mood status.” He indicated a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and noted that plaintiff was “stable on current medications.” Again, Defendant Khatain misdiagnosed Ms. Spencer and failed to treat the underlying GID.
(k) On January 11, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by the “Interdisciplinary Treatment Committee,” which upon information and belief, consisted of Defendant Perrien, D. Mitchell, M. Shaw, M. Johnson (a deputy warden at IMSI), and M. Crimson, a clinician at IMSI. Upon information and belief, the “Interdisciplinary Treatment Team” is not a treatment team for the management and treatment of inmates with GID pursuant to IDOC policy. On the contrary, the memorandum issued as a result of this examination is merely a boilerplate form in which five generic categories of information are “checked.” The memorandum is silent as to whether the “Interdisciplinary Treatment Team” reviewed Plaintiff’s current level of care to ensure appropriate care, or whether the team developed a treatment plan for Plaintiff.
(l) On March 3, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Richard Christensen, an endocrinologist, regarding treatment in connection with the lack of hormones resulting from Plaintiff’s self-castration. Dr. Christensen diagnosed Plaintiff with “male hypogonadism,” and noted beard growth, hot flashes, temperature intolerance, decreased libido, and sleep disturbance. Dr. Christensen further noted the risks of untreated hypogonadism, including osteoporosis, muscle mass loss, fat mass increase, and metabolic change.

sf-2385688

16

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 18 of 28

(m) On August 3, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Green, who offered Plaintiff testosterone treatment. Plaintiff refused testosterone treatment, and informed Dr. Green that she had castrated herself to eliminate testosterone in her body and that estrogen was the only appropriate hormonal therapy for her condition. On October 13, 2006, Dr. Green again offered Plaintiff testosterone, which Plaintiff again refused. Despite the dangers associated with a failure to treat hypogonadism, Defendants have not offered any hormonal therapy to Ms. Spencer other than testosterone.
(n) On September 19, 2006, in response to a request inquiring about treatment for her GID condition, Defendant Green informed Plaintiff that her treatment consists of “attend[ing] groups as allowed or as available.” Rather than providing Plaintiff with an appropriate treatment plan for her condition, Defendant Green instructed Plaintiff to “[p]lease continue with your art.”

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Against All Defendants in Their Individual and Official Capacities Violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
Actionable Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment — Inadequate Medical Care)
48. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 49 above.
49. Plaintiff is a biological male who suffers from Gender Identity Disorder (“GID”),
also known as gender dysphoria or transsexualism. Plaintiff has been incarcerated at IDOC since
May 2000. As a result of her GID, Plaintiff castrated herself in October 2005.
50. Even after Plaintiff’s self-castration, Defendants continued to refuse to diagnose
Plaintiff with GID or treat her for her GID symptoms. As a result, Plaintiff continues to suffer
emotionally and physically due to her GID condition. Defendants’ refusal to provide Plaintiff

sf-2385688

17

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 19 of 28
with female hormones after her self-castration has caused Plaintiff to lack adequate levels of sex hormones.
51. The only treatment offered by Defendants (specifically, Defendants Sombke, Khatain and Green) is testosterone. Plaintiff, however, has consistently refused testosterone and has clearly indicated to Defendants that in view of her GID condition, the only hormone she should be receiving is estrogen. Plaintiff expresses no regret for her self-castration, enjoys the changes in her body, and is much happier now that she has taken action to treat herself for her disorder.
52. Medical professionals with expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of GID agree that testosterone treatment is psychiatrically inappropriate and potentially dangerous for persons with GID who have self-eliminated their testosterone production via castration. Male sex hormones are likely to increase gender dysphoric symptoms, leading to depression, irritability, overall diminished mental health, and possibly overt suicidality. In such patients, treatment with feminizing hormones such as estrogen meets both the physical and the psychiatric needs for sex hormone replacement. Therapy with estrogen will minimize the effects of hypogonadism (for example, by reducing the risk of osteoporosis) while at the same time stabilizing psychological functioning.
53. None of the Defendants is qualified to diagnose or treat GID. None of the Defendants has an expertise in the diagnosis or treatment of GID. None of the Defendants has ever provided Plaintiff with access to a mental health or medical provider (other than Plaintiff’s medical experts) who is competent and qualified to diagnose and/or treat GID.
54. The IDOC Management and Treatment Committee never convened to evaluate Plaintiff for GID despite her repeated requests for diagnosis and treatment, even after her self-

sf-2385688

18

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 20 of 28
castration. Defendant Haas did not convene the MTC to evaluate Plaintiff because he felt that there were no issues to discuss concerning a treatment plan for GID or specialized housing needs associated with GID.
55. Defendants Haas, Fisher, Hardison, Sombke, Khatain, Perrien, and Green were members of the Management and Treatment Committee at all material times. Upon information and belief, none of the Defendants has any relevant experience or expertise in GID diagnosis or treatment. None of the members of the Management and Treatment Committee has any particular experience or expertise in diagnosing or treating individuals with GID. None of the Defendants employs any personnel with relevant experience or expertise in GID diagnosis or treatment, nor have Defendants ever referred an IDOC inmate to a GID specialist for diagnosis or treatment.
56. The acts or omissions complained of herein were undertaken by Defendants with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Defendants intentionally denied, delayed, and interfered with Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain appropriate medical treatment. In particular, Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s health and safety by their delay in evaluating and treating Plaintiff for GID, their lack of competence in diagnosing and treating Plaintiff’s condition and their failure to do so, and their ongoing failure to address Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.
57. Plaintiff’s GID condition qualifies as a serious medical need because a reasonable doctor or patient would find it important and worthy of comment or treatment.
58. Plaintiff’s GID condition qualifies as a serious medical need because the presence of GID significantly affects an individual’s daily activities.

sf-2385688

19

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 21 of 28
59. Plaintiff’s GID condition qualifies as a serious medical need because the failure to treat this condition can result in further significant injury and in the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.
60. Plaintiff’s medical condition poses a substantial risk of serious harm, which risk and harm Defendants have been aware of and disregarded. To the extent any treatment was provided, the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. Thus, Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the serious risks posed by Plaintiff’s medical condition.
61. Each of the Defendants acted under color of state law as to the matters set forth herein. All of the acts or omissions complained of herein are the result of specific decisions, official policies, and customs of Defendants. Each of the Defendants knows of and is responsible for the acts and omissions set forth herein.
62. Defendants have a duty to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiff and other state prisoners.
63. Defendants’ acts and omissions complained of herein amount to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
64. Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that the acts and omissions complained of herein are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks the injunctive relief set forth in the prayer for relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Against All Defendants in Their Individual and Official Capacities

sf-2385688

20

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 22 of 28
Violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Actionable Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Cruel and Unusual Punishment — Inadequate Medical Care) 65. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 66 above. 66. The Board of Corrections is responsible pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-209 for the control, direction and management of correctional facilities and for the provision of care and maintenance for all prisoners in state custody. Additionally, the Board of Corrections is responsible pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-214 for the training, employment, and fixing of duties for all assistants, officers and other persons necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the Idaho Department of Corrections. 67. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 20-212, the Board of Corrections may adopt, repeal, suspend or amend such rules as it deems necessary to the efficient management and control of the functions under the Board of Corrections’ authority and all properties used in connection therewith. These rules have the force and effect of law and shall have precedence over policy and procedure statements, division directives or field memoranda. 68. According to IDOC Policy Number 401, entitled “Hospitalization, Institutional Clinical Services and Treatment,” the Director serves as the chief administrative officer and business management authority for the Idaho Department of Corrections. The Director may, at his discretion, designate and assign an administrator to oversee IDOC’s medical services. Moreover, according to IDOC Directive 401.06.03.501, the Director reviews the recommendations of the MTC and the ARC, and “shall have final authority for placement” of inmates with GID. 69. According to IDOC Policy Number 401, the Medical Services Manager shall act as the Department Health Authority, as approved by the Director. Along with the Director, the

sf-2385688

21

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 23 of 28
Medical Services Manager is responsible for the establishment of written health care standards for IDOC’s facilities. In addition, upon information and belief, the Medical Services Manager serves on the MTC.
70. Upon information and belief the warden at each IDOC facility serves as the facility head. The facility head is the person with primary responsibility to oversee, manage or operate an IDOC facility. In addition, upon information and belief, the facility head serves on the MTC.
71. Upon information and belief, Defendants Titus, Kruzich, Flerchinger, Cheeney, Khatain, Sombke, Perrien and Green have provided or currently provide medical services to IDOC inmates (including Plaintiff), either under contract as employees of PHS and/or CMS or employed directly by IDOC. Upon information and belief, none of Defendants Titus, Kruzich, Flerchinger, Cheeney, Khatain, Sombke, Perrien or Green has any particular experience or expertise in diagnosing or treating individuals with GID. Upon information and belief, none of the medical care providers directly employed by IDOC, or employed by PHS and/or CMS and under contract with IDOC, has any particular experience or expertise in diagnosing or treating individuals with GID.
72. As part of their supervisory duties, Defendants know or must have known that medical care providers providing services to prisoners in IDOC custody are not qualified to diagnose or treat GID. Defendants also know or must have known of a custom, practice or usage of interfering with, or providing delayed and/or inadequate medical care to prisoners, particularly mental health care and more particularly treatment for GID, and therefore created a custom, practice or usage of delivery of constitutionally inadequate medical care to prisoners.

sf-2385688

22

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 24 of 28

73. Defendants failed to provide adequate recruitment, retention, supervision and discipline policies relating to the delivery of medical care to prisoners, thereby creating within IDOC a custom or practice of tolerance toward the delivery of constitutionally inadequate medical care, in particular, as related to the diagnosis or treatment of GID.
74. Defendants’ aforementioned actions and omissions constituted a state policy, custom or persistent practice, which actions and omissions amounted to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff and other prisoners.
75. Each of the Defendants acted under color of state law as to the matters set forth herein. All of the acts or omissions complained of herein are the result of specific decisions, official policies, and customs of Defendants. Each of the Defendants knows of and is responsible for the acts and omissions set forth herein.
76. Defendants have a duty to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiff and other state prisoners.
77. Defendants’ acts and omissions complained of herein amount to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
78. Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that the acts and omissions complained of herein are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks the injunctive relief set forth in the prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

sf-2385688

23

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 25 of 28
a) An Order requiring that Defendants provide to Plaintiff, within 14 days of the Order, (1) treatment with feminizing hormones, and (2) psychological counseling by a mental health professional with substantial training and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of persons with GID, which treatment and counseling shall continue throughout Plaintiff’s incarceration in the Idaho Department of Corrections system;
b) An Order appointing a medical or mental health professional with experience in the diagnosis and/or treatment of persons with GID to serve as a member of the Management and Treatment Committee for a minimum of one year, to ensure the proper implementation of the Court’s order in (a) above as well as IDOC Directive Nos. 401.06.03.501, regarding the health care of offenders, and 303.02.01.002, regarding the classification, management and placement of offenders with GID;
c) Reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, as well as costs of suit and interest; and

sf-2385688

24

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 26 of 28

d) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

Dated October 18, 2007

James M. Schurz Parisa Jorjani Mathew W. dos Santos MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Shannon Minter Jody Marksamer NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS

J. Walter Sinclair Gregory C. Tollefson Bradley J. Dixon STOEL RIVES LLP

By: /s/ James M. Schurz
James M. Schurz MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff

sf-2385688

25

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 27 of 28

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 304 Filed 10/18/07 Page 28 of 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 18th day of October, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing document and its attachment with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which caused the following parties or counsel to be served by electronic means, as more fully reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing:
John J. Burke, Attorney for Defendants K.G. Khatain, M.D., Chad Sombke, Ph.D., Sharlene Green, Psy.D., and Correctional Medical Services, Inc.
(jjb@hallfarley.com)
James S. Thomson II, Attorney for Defendants K.G. Khatain, M.D., Chad Sombke, Ph.D., Sharlene Green, Psy.D., and Correctional Medical Services, Inc.
(jst@hallfarley.com)
Phillip J. Collaer, Attorney for Idaho Department of Corrections, Idaho State Board of Corrections, Defendants Carolyn Meline, Ralph Townsend, Dwight Board, Jim Tibbs, Jay Nielsen, Robin Sandy, Vaughn Killeen, Thomas Beauclair, Gregory Fisher, Kevin Kemph, David Haas, Edward Cheeney, Mary Perrien, and John Hardison
(pcollaer@ajhlaw.com)
Paul R. Panther, Attorney for Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections (ppanther@corr.state.id.us)
Andrea L. Julian, Attorney for Defendants K.G. Khatain, M.D., and Chad Sombke, Ph.D. (ajul@hteh.com)
Joseph D. McCollum, Jr., Attorney for Defendants K.G. Khatain, M.D., and Chad Sombke, Ph.D.
(jdm@hteh.com)
Lea C. Cooper (leacooper@homeinternet.net)
/s/ Chris Chiang Chris Chiang

sf-2385688

27

 
 Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 326 Filed 08/11/09 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RANDALL GAMMETT, aka Jenniffer )

Ann Spencer,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

IDAHO STATE BOARD OF

)

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

________________________________ )

Case No. 1:05-CV-257-MHW JUDGMENT

The Court previously entered an Order dismissing this action with prejudice based

on the stipulation of the parties. Based upon that Order, and the Court being fully advised

in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s case is

DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety.

DATED: August 11, 2009
Honorable Mikel H. Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge

JUDGMENT 1

 
 Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 325 Filed 08/11/09 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RANDALL GAMMETT, aka Jenniffer Ann Spencer,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IDAHO STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, et al.
Defendants.

Case No. CV05-257-S-MHW
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Based upon the STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (Docket No. 323) filed herein, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (including all amendments thereto), is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety, each party to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees.

DATED: August 11, 2009

Honorable Mikel H. Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION

FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

1

 
 Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 319 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RANDALL GAMMETT,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

IDAHO STATE BOARD OF

)

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________________ )

Case No. CV05-257-S-MHW ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties' Stipulation to Stay Case Pending Appeal

(Docket No. 317). Good cause appearing, the Court shall order that this case be stayed

pending the outcome of the appeal of the Preliminary Injunction Order and Order denying

Defendants' Motion to Reconsider to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case shall

be administratively terminated and all pending motions deemed moot during the stay.

Administrative termination is an internal tool to aid in managing the Court's docket and

does not affect the filing dates or interests of the parties.

ORDER

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motions for

Summary Judgment and for Dismissal (Docket Nos. 255, 256, & 312) are MOOT. After

the case is reopened, Defendants may reassert these Motions by filing a notice, together

with supplemental briefing and exhibits, if any.

ORDER 1

Case 1:05-cv-00257-MHW Document 319 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 2 IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Motions for Leave to File Excess Pages (Docket Nos. 275, 297 & 307) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motions to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (Docket Nos. 308 & 310) are GRANTED. This case shall be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Clerk of Court shall administratively terminate this case during appeal.
DATED: November 30, 2007 Honorable Mikel H. Williams United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER 2

 
 Gammett v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 2684750 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Idaho.
Randall GAMMETT a/k/a Jenniffer Ann Spencer, Plaintiff, v.
IDAHO STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
No. CV05–257–S–MHW. | Sept. 7, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Bradley J. Dixon, Gregory C. Tollefson, J. Walter Sinclair, Stoel Rives LLP, Lea C. Cooper, Boise, ID, James M. Schurz, Mathew William Dos Santos, Mia Anna Mazza, Parisa Jorjani, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jody Marksamer, Lena Ayoub, Shannon Minter, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Phillip J. Collaer, Anderson Julian & Hull, Paul R. Panther, Idaho Department of Correction, James S. Thomson, II, John J. Burke, Bryan A. Nickels, Hall Farley Oberrecht & Blanton, Andrea L. Julian, Joseph D. McCollum, Jr., Ryan Thomas McFarland, Hawley Troxell Ennis and Hawley, Boise, Id, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
MIKEL H. WILLIAMS, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 Pending before the Court are the following motions: (1) the IDOC Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 237); (2) the CMS and PHS Defendants’ Joint Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Terminate Injunction (Docket No. 239, all parts therein); (3) the IDOC Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Trial Setting Order (Docket No. 250); and (4) the PHS Defendants’ Motion for Scheduling Conference (Docket No. 252).
After reviewing the pending motions and record in this action, the Court will deny Defendants’ requests for reconsideration of the order granting preliminary injunctive relief to Plaintiff, and will also deny the requests to terminate the preliminary injunction. The IDOC Defendants’ motion to vacate the trial date in this action will be conditionally granted, and the PHS Defendants’ request for a scheduling conference will be granted. The date originally set for the pre-trial

conference will be converted to a scheduling conference.
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
A. Background On July 27, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, and ordered that
Defendants who have responsibility for Plaintiff’s current welfare and health care are to provide Plaintiff with appropriate female hormone therapy and psychotherapy to address Plaintiff’s gender issues, and, where applicable, to comply with IDOC’s policies and directives. Defendants shall notify the Court within ten (10) days of this Order if they are unable to procure a prescription from an Idaho-licensed doctor for the hormone or provide psychotherapy to address Plaintiff’s gender issues.
Memorandum Decision and Order (Order), Docket No. 230, p. 36. The Court reached the decision on the injunctive relief request after an exhaustive examination of the lengthy briefs, pleadings, affidavits and medical records. The Court’s ruling also focused on the events occurring after Plaintiff was incarcerated and began requesting evaluation and treatment for GID.1 Despite the narrowness of the ruling, Defendants have submitted additional affidavits, deposition testimony, and medical records in an attempt to persuade the Court that its ruling is erroneous.
The main theme set forth in the “new” evidence submitted by Defendants is that Plaintiff’s self-reported history of attempting to live like a female cannot be substantiated. For example, Plaintiff’s claim of taking birth control pills was refuted by the woman who allegedly gave them to Plaintiff. In addition, Plaintiff had alleged that he portrayed himself as a woman while living with another person. This person has now denied that these events occurred. Defendants claim that the contradictions and alleged fabrications in Plaintiff’s stories of living like a woman support the original diagnoses of Drs. Khatain and Sombke that Plaintiff does not suffer from gender identity disorder. Therefore, they argue that the preliminary injunction was erroneously granted and call for termination of the injunction.
1

Gammett v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

B. Standard of Law *2 In Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir.2000), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the limited use of a Rule 59(e) motion:
Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed.2000). Indeed, “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.1999). A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. See id.
Id. at 890.
C. Discussion The Court has reviewed the evidence that Defendants claim warrants the termination of the preliminary injunction, and it is not persuaded that the evidence affects the underlying rationale for the Order. The evidence Defendants have discovered almost two years into this lawsuit relates mainly to the issue of whether they are liable for the alleged failure to diagnose and treat Plaintiff prior to the self-castration, and only marginally to Plaintiff’s GID diagnosis and treatment post-castration. The Court’s Order for treatment was based on numerous factors and took into account that Plaintiff has a history of lying, manipulating, and attention-seeking. Defendants will be able to use the evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged fabrications at the trial in this matter, but the evidence does not change the factors which weighed most heavily in granting the preliminary injunction—namely, that untreated GID is a life-threatening mental health condition in the context that Plaintiff has engaged in self-mutilation and suicide attempts while in the custody of the IDOC after repeatedly requesting treatment for GID. The Order also referred to the health risks associated with hypogonadism from which Plaintiff has been suffering for over eighteen months. Order, p. 31–32. There is still nothing in the record indicating that a treatment plan for Plaintiff’s hypogonadism has been addressed.
The Court’s ruling stated that “the greater the relative hardship to [the moving party], the less probability of success must be shown.” Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.2005). Plaintiff’s evidence

continues to meet these standards, even in light of the allegations that he lied about living as a female and taking hormone pills prior to his incarceration.
Plaintiff’s counsel argue that Defendants’ new evidence should be excluded because it could reasonably have been discovered and raised earlier in the litigation. While this point may be well taken, the Court notes that the evidence is not entirely “new.” Dr. Brown’s report specifically refers to the lying and attention-seeking behavior in which Plaintiff has engaged prior to and during incarceration, so the parties and the Court were on notice that part of Plaintiff’s diagnosis included these behavioral factors. The Court’s Order focused primarily on the immediate treatment for Plaintiff that is now necessary to treat his psychiatric and medical conditions after the self-castration, not on his conduct pre-incarceration or the legal effect of the conduct of Defendants prior to the self-castration. The evidence Defendants now bring before the Court has little bearing on Plaintiff’s current mental and physical condition which may deteriorate before a trial can be held if treatment is not provided immediately.
*3 The additional affidavits of Drs. Kohler and Lawrence are similarly unpersuasive on the issue of Plaintiff’s current mental and physical condition because their opinions are obviously made in support of Defendants’ attempts to limit potential liability for the alleged failure to diagnose and treat Plaintiff prior to self-castration. Neither one of these doctors has conducted an examination of Plaintiff as of the date of their most recent affidavits. Dr. Brown’s supplemental affidavit indicates that Defendants’ new evidence has not changed his current diagnosis of GID. Nor has the evidence changed his opinion that testosterone hormone therapy is contraindicated for Plaintiff’s psychiatric condition.
Defendants further argue the Court committed clear error and should have found that there is simply a difference of opinion as to diagnosis and treatment in this case and that Plaintiff cannot prevail at trial. The Court disagrees that this is a “cut-and-dried” case, as Defendants see it. There is sufficient evidence in the record to allow Plaintiff to proceed to trial on his Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference. Because Plaintiff has a fair chance of prevailing at trial and the balance of harms tips sharply in his favor regarding his current treatment, preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.
Based on all of the foregoing, Defendants’ request for reconsideration of the Court’s Order granting a preliminary injunction is denied.
D. Termination of Preliminary Injunction The PHS and CMS Defendants also invoke the provisions
2

Gammett v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

of the PLRA setting forth the standards for injunctive relief orders regarding prison conditions. The injunctive relief can only be ordered “with respect to prison conditions” if it extends “no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). The Court must find that the “relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation.” Id. All injunctive orders entered after the PLRA’s enactment must meet this needs-narrowness-intrusiveness test.
Defendants’ Motion states that they are requesting termination of the preliminary injunction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b). See Docket No. 239, p. 1. This section of the PLRA outlines the method for terminating a final order granting prospective relief. A party may seek termination of final injunctive orders two years after they are entered. Id., § 3626(b). A defendant is entitled to immediate termination if the relief in the final order was granted without findings that meet the needs-narrowness-intrusiveness test. Id., § 3626(b)(2). If the Court makes written findings that prospective relief remains necessary to correct current and ongoing violations of Federal rights, then the prospective relief can remain in effect, at least until such time as another motion to terminate is filed. Id., § 3626(b)(3).
*4 The mechanism for terminating injunctive orders under the PLRA creates an automatic stay within thirty (30) days after the motion to terminate is filed, unless for good cause the Court determines that an additional sixty (60) day postponement of the stay is warranted. Id., § 3626(e)(2)(A), (3). The automatic stay ends when the Court makes a final ruling on the necessity for continuing the prospective relief. Id., § 3626(e)(2)(B).
It appears that Defendants are attempting to invoke the automatic stay provisions of the PLRA, but these provisions relate to final injunctive orders, not the preliminary injunctive relief the Court has ordered. The provisions of the PLRA relating to temporary relief provide that “[p]reliminary injunctive relief shall automatically expire on the date that is 90 days after its entry, unless the court makes the findings required under subsection (a)(1) for the entry of prospective relief and makes the order final before the expiration of the 90–day period.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Therefore, the statute provides for an automatic expiration of a preliminary injunction, unless it is made final within that time limit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a district court may enter a second preliminary injunction upon the expiration of the first without violating the terms of the statute. Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir.2001). Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to invoke the automatic stay provisions of the PLRA, and the preliminary injunction is valid for 90 days, at which

time the Court can renew the injunction, pending the trial in this action.
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ request for termination of the preliminary injunction is without merit.
E. Treatment for Plaintiff The Court’s Order directed Defendants to submit affidavits, indicating whether they were able to follow the Court’s Order which directed them to provide estrogen hormone therapy and psychotherapy for Plaintiff. Defendants’ response indicated that they could not implement the terms of the preliminary injunction. Therefore, the type of further relief ordered by the Court “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Dr. Ashley Davis, a local Boise physician knowledgeable in cross-sex hormonal treatment of transgender patients. They propose that Plaintiff be transported to the offices of Dr. Davis for an initial visit and to initiate treatment. They request that Dr. Davis be immediately provided with access to Plaintiff’s existing medical records and that she continue to have access to newly created medical records. Dr. Davis will also be provided with the diagnosis and treatment recommendations of Drs. Denise Taylor and George R. Brown. Dr. Davis will be asked to exercise her independent medical judgment to diagnose Plaintiff and fashion an individualized treatment plan. Plaintiff’s counsel request that Plaintiff be allowed to contact Dr. Davis to discuss his treatment as necessary. Plaintiff will also need to be transported to the offices of Dr. Davis as necessary for follow-up evaluations. Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel request that Plaintiff be given continuing access to Dr. Davis as necessary for his regular care. Counsel request that the IDOC be directed to pay Dr. Davis’ standard hourly rate for all time spent evaluating, treating, and monitoring Plaintiff.
*5 Plaintiff’s counsel also contacted Dr. Cathy Marshall Gwin, a local Boise psychologist, who is knowledgeable in providing psychotherapeutic counseling for transgender patients. Plaintiff requests that Dr. Gwin be immediately provided with access to Plaintiff’s existing medical records, and that she continue to have access to newly created medical records. Plaintiff will need to be transported to Dr. Gwin’s office for purposes of an initial evaluation, and Plaintiff will require continuing access to Dr. Gwin, either by telephone or in-person, as directed by Dr. Gwin for Plaintiff’s necessary, regular care. Counsel request that the IDOC be directed to pay Dr. Gwin’s standard hourly rate for all time spent evaluating, treating, and monitoring Plaintiff.
3

Gammett v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

The Court has determined that Plaintiff’s proposed

treatment

plan

satisfies

the

needs-narrowness-intrusiveness test, and it will adopt the

plan submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel for providing

treatment to Plaintiff. See Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418

F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.2005)(holding that the inmate

satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction,

prohibiting prison officials from punishing him for

refusing to follow a system-wide hair-length policy);

Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1130 (9th

Cir.2001)(holding that the injunctive relief preventing

retaliation against six inmates was appropriately tailored

and the least intrusive means of correcting the

constitutional violation). The treatment plan is necessary

because Defendants were given the opportunity to provide

treatment for Plaintiff and have notified the Court that

they cannot provide the ordered treatment.

MOTION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE
Based on the Court’s determination that the Order for preliminary injunctive relief can be entered for an additional 90 days after its expiration, the Court will conditionally grant Defendants’ motion to vacate the trial date. In the event Defendants take the position that the preliminary injunction expires at the end of 90 days and cannot be renewed by the district court, then the Court will retain the original trial date in order to preserve the efficacy of the treatment plan for Plaintiff. The Court will change the pretrial conference set for October 10, 2007 to a scheduling conference for this case. Counsel shall be prepared to discuss the deadlines for all pre-trial submissions and a new trial date.

ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the IDOC Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 237) is DENIED. The following treatment plan shall be implemented no later than ten (10) days after entry of this Order: Plaintiff shall be transported to the office of Dr. Ashley Davis for an initial visit and to initiate treatment. Dr. Davis shall be immediately provided with

access to Plaintiff’s existing medical records, and she shall continue to have access to newly created medical records. Dr. Davis shall be provided the diagnosis and treatment recommendations of Drs. Denise Taylor and George R. Brown. Dr. Davis shall exercise her independent medical judgment to diagnose or fashion an individualized treatment plan for Plaintiff. Plaintiff will be allowed to contact Dr. Davis to discuss his treatment as necessary. Plaintiff shall be transported to the offices of Dr. Davis as necessary for follow-up evaluations. Plaintiff shall be provided continuing access to Dr. Davis as necessary for his regular care and treatment. Based on the Court’s understanding that the IDOC regularly pays outside consulting medical care providers their standard hourly rate for the treatment of inmates, the IDOC shall pay Dr. Davis’ standard hourly rate for all time spent evaluating, treating, and monitoring Plaintiff.
*6 Plaintiff shall also receive immediate treatment from Dr. Cathy Marshall Gwin, a local Boise psychologist. Dr. Gwin shall be immediately provided with access to Plaintiff’s existing medical records, and she shall continue to have access to newly created medical records. Plaintiff shall be transported to the offices of Dr. Gwin for purposes of an initial evaluation. Plaintiff shall be given continuing access to Dr. Gwin, either by telephone or in-person, as determined by Dr. Gwin is necessary for Plaintiff’s regular care. The IDOC shall pay Dr. Gwin’s standard hourly rate for all time spent evaluating, treating, and monitoring Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the CMS and PHS Defendants’ Joint Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Terminate Injunction (Docket No. 239, all parts therein) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the IDOC Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Trial Setting Order (Docket No. 250) is conditionally granted as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the PHS Defendants’ Motion for Scheduling Conference (Docket No. 252) is GRANTED. The pre-trial conference set for October 10, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. shall be changed to a scheduling conference.
	  

Footnotes

1

Defendants’ “new” evidence challenges the credibility of Plaintiff’s pre-incarceration history of attempting to live as a female

which was one factor the Court considered. The following factors upon which the Order focused have not been changed by the new

evidence: (1) Plaintiff attempted suicide in August 2004 shortly after he was told he did not have GID; (2) he first attempted

castration in October 2005; (3) he tried again and succeeded at self-castration several weeks later; (4) Plaintiff’s reason for cutting

off his testicles was that he felt he is transgender and “could not stand the sight of them [any] more”; (5) Plaintiff tried to change

his name to a female name beginning in December 2003, and successfully obtained a legal name change to “Jenniffer Ann

4

Gammett v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007) Spencer” occurring in October 2006; (6) Plaintiff filed this lawsuit to attempt to obtain treatment for GID; (7) Defendants’ view that Plaintiff is now mentally stable is flawed in that the apparent stability is more likely caused by the self-castration and its feminizing effects on Plaintiff; (8) After his incarceration at an IDOC facility in 2000, Plaintiff made efforts to dress and groom as a woman, including wearing skirts, shaving body hair, and using makeup; and (9) Dr. Christensen has opined that irreversible bone density loss caused by hypogonadism would likely start to occur one and one-half (1.5) years after self-castration, and Plaintiff is now beyond that date. See Order of July 27, 2007, p. 27.
	  
5

 
 General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 07­35829 Nature of Suit: 3550 Prisoner­Civil Rights Gammett v. Idaho State Board, et al Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Idaho, Boise Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information: 1) civil 2) private 3) null

Originating Court Information: District: 0976­1 : CV­05­00257/MHW Court Reporter: Vicki Jones, Court Reporter Trial Judge: Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge Date Filed: 06/30/2005 Date Order/Judgment: 09/07/2007

Date NOA Filed: 09/28/2007

Prior Cases: None

Current Cases: Companion
Consolidated

Lead
07­35490 07­35490
07­35829

Member
07­35829 07­35834
07­35834

Start

End

10/05/2007 11/06/2007

11/07/2007

Docketed: 10/05/2007 Termed: 08/06/2009

RANDALL GAMMETT, also known as Jennifer Ann Spencer Plaintiff ­ Appellee,

Lena Ayoub Van Leeuwen, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 510­868­0632 [COR LD NTC Retained] LAW OFFICES OF LENA AYOUB VAN LEEUWEN P.O. Box 11230 Oakland, CA 94611
Lea C. Cooper, Esquire Direct: 208/433­9371 [COR LD NTC Retained] 3227 Morris Hill Rd. Boise, ID 83706
Parisa Jorjani, Esquire Direct: 415/268­6576 [COR LD NTC Retained] Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105­2482
Mia Mazza, Attorney Direct: 415­268­6024 [COR LD NTC Retained] Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105­2482
Shannon Price Minter, Esquire, Legal Director Direct: 415­392­6257 [COR LD NTC Retained] National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market Street Suite 370 San Francisco, CA 94102

James Walter Sinclair, Attorney Direct: 208­342­5000 [COR LD NTC Retained] Holland & Hart LLP Suite 1400 800 W. Main Street P.O. Box 2527 Boise, ID 83702
v.

IDAHO STATE BOARD OF CORRECTION Defendant ­ Appellant,
CAROLYN MELINE, individually and in their officail capacity as member of the Idaho State Board of Corrections
Defendant ­ Appellant,
RALPH TOWNSEND, individually and in their official capacity as member of the Idaho State Board of Corrections
Defendant ­ Appellant,
DWIGHT BOARD Defendant ­ Appellant,
JIM TIBBS Defendant ­ Appellant,
JAY NIELSEN Defendant ­ Appellant,
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant ­ Appellant,
THOMAS BEAUCLAIR Defendant ­ Appellant,
DAVID HAAS Defendant ­ Appellant,
KEVIN KEMPH Defendant ­ Appellant,
DOCTOR KRUZICH Defendant,
DOCTOR FLERCHINGER, Edward Cheeney; Greg Fisher;

Phillip J. Collaer, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­5800 [COR LD NTC Retained] Anderson Julian & Hull LLP Suite 700 250 S. Fifth Street Suite 700 Boise, ID 83707
Phillip J. Collaer, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­5800 [COR LD NTC Retained] (see above)
Phillip J. Collaer, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­5800 [COR LD NTC Retained] (see above)
Phillip J. Collaer, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­5800 [COR LD NTC Retained] (see above)
Phillip J. Collaer, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­5800 [COR LD NTC Retained] (see above)
Phillip J. Collaer, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­5800 [COR LD NTC Retained] (see above)
Phillip J. Collaer, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­5800 [COR LD NTC Retained] (see above)
Phillip J. Collaer, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­5800 [COR LD NTC Retained] (see above)
Phillip J. Collaer, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­5800 [COR LD NTC Retained] (see above)
Phillip J. Collaer, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­5800 [COR LD NTC Retained] (see above)
John J. Burke, Attorney

Kenneth Khatain;Chad Sombke; Prison Health Services; Robin Sandy; Vaughn Killeen; John Hardison; Mary Perrien; Dr. Sharlene Green: Correctional Medical Services;
Defendant,

Direct: 208­343­5454 [COR LD Retained] Elam & Burke, PA P.O. Box 1539 251 E. Front St. Boise, ID 83702

Joseph D. McCollum, Jr., Esquire, Attorney Direct: 208­344­6000 [COR LD Retained] Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP Suite 1000 877 West Main Street Boise, ID 83702

RANDALL GAMMETT, also known as Jennifer Ann Spencer,
Plaintiff ­ Appellee,
v.
IDAHO STATE BOARD OF CORRECTION; CAROLYN MELINE, individually and in their officail capacity as member of the Idaho State Board of Corrections; RALPH TOWNSEND, individually and in their official capacity as member of the Idaho State Board of Corrections; DWIGHT BOARD; JIM TIBBS; JAY NIELSEN; IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; THOMAS BEAUCLAIR; DAVID HAAS; KEVIN KEMPH,
Defendants ­ Appellants,
and
DOCTOR KRUZICH; DOCTOR FLERCHINGER, Edward Cheeney; Greg Fisher; Kenneth Khatain;Chad Sombke; Prison Health Services; Robin Sandy; Vaughn Killeen; John Hardison; Mary Perrien; Dr. Sharlene Green: Correctional Medical Services;,
Defendants.

10/05/2007

3

DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. CADS SENT (Y/N): y. setting schedule as follows: CADS is past due; CADS must be filed no later than 10/12/07; appellant's designation of RT is due 10/9/07,, ; appellee's designation of RT is due 10/18/07; appellant shall order transcript by 10/29/07,, ; court reporter shall file transcript in DC by 11/28/07; certificate of record shall be filed by 12/5/07 ; appellant's opening brief is due 1/14/08,, ; appellees' brief is due 2/13/08; appellants' reply brief is due 2/27/08,, ; [07­35829] (GR) [Entered: 10/05/2007 03:01 PM]

10/18/2007

13

Filed Appellee Randall Gammett's response to CADS; served on 10/18/07 (to CONFATT) [07­35829] (Hom, Howard) [Entered: 11/13/2007 12:09 PM]

10/22/2007

5

Filed order MOATT (KEW) The appeal filed 9/28/07 is a preliminary injunction appeal. Accordingly, 9th Cir.R. 3­3 shall apply. The briefing schedule established prevsly is VACATED. if they have not already done so, within 7 calendar days of the filing date of this order, the parties shall make arrangements to obtain from the court reporter an official transcript of proceedings in the dc that will be included in the record on appeal. The briefing schedule is set as follows: the opening brief is due not later than 10/26/07; the answering brief is due 11/23/07 or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days of service of the ans brf. See 9th Cir.R. 3­3(b). If aplts fail to file timely the opening brief, this appeal will be dismissed automatically by the clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir.R. 42­1. [07­35829] (Hom, Howard) [Entered: 10/22/2007 03:33 PM]

10/26/2007

7

Filed order MOATT (RB) This is a preliminary injunction appeal. Aplts' oral motion for a 14­day ext of time to file the opening brief is GRANTED. The opening brief is due 11/9/07; the answering brief is due 12/7/07; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the ans brf. [07­35829] (Hom, Howard) [Entered: 10/26/2007 12:43 PM]

11/06/2007

9

Filed Appellants Idaho State Board, et al. and aple Randall Gammett's joint motion for consolidation; affidavit of Phillip J. Collaer; served on 11/5/07 [6338231] (to MOATT) (Hom, Howard) [Entered: 11/06/2007 03:23 PM]

11/06/2007

11

Filed Appellee Randall Gammett's statement of non­opposition to joint motion for consolidation; served on 11/6/07 (MOATT) [07­35829, 07­35834] (GV) [Entered: 11/07/2007 05:20 PM]

11/07/2007

10

Filed order MOATT (KEW) Appeal No. 07­35829 is a preliminary injunction appeal. The joint, unopposed mtn to consolidate these appeals is granted. Appeal Nos. 07­35829 and 07­35834 are consolidated. The br sch in appeal 07­35829 is vacated. The following br sch shall govern these consolidated appeals: the consolidated opening br and excs are due 1/22/08; the consolidated ans br is due 2/19/08, and the consolidated optional rpy br is due 3/4/08. The parties request to file oversized brs is denied without prejudice to renewal. The parties have not met the requirements of 9th Cir. Rule 32­2. "Motions to Exceed the Page or Type Volume Limitations." (faxed per MOATT) [07­35829, 07­35834] (GV) [Entered: 11/07/2007 05:07 PM]

11/09/2007

14

Case rejected from Circuit Mediation Program. (SB) [Entered: 12/11/2007 11:05 AM]

01/11/2008

16

Filed order CONFATT (AJ) The court will initiate a further assessment conference by telephone on 1/14/08, at 1:45pm Pacific (S.F.) Time. [07­35829, 07­35834] (Hom, Howard) [Entered: 01/11/2008 10:37 AM]

01/16/2008

20

Filed order CONFATT (AJ) The briefing schedule prevsly set by the court is amended as follows: the consolidated opening brief shall be filed on or before 2/5/08; the consolidated answering brief shall be filed on or before 3/6/08; the consolidated optional reply brief is due within 14 days from the service date of the ans brf. The court will initiate a further conference with csl for defts by telephone on 1/16/08, at 10:00am Pacific (S.F.) Time. The court will initiate a further conference with all csl by telephone on 1/14/08, at 1:45pm Pacific (S.F.) Time. A telephonic conference with all csl will be held on 1/22/08, at 10:00am Pacific (S.F.) Time.... [07­35829, 07­35834] (Hom, Howard) [Entered: 01/16/2008 12:50 PM]

01/24/2008

22

Filed order CONFATT (AJ) The briefing schedule prevsly set by the court is amended as follows: the consolidated opening brief shall be filed on or before 3/6/08; the consolidated answering brief shall be filed on or before 4/7/08; the consolidated optional reply brief is due within 14 days from the service date of the ans brf. The court will initiate a further conference with csl for Dept. of Corrections by telephone on 1/25/08, at 9:30am Pacific (S.F.) Time. A further telephone conference with all csl will be held on 2/1/08, at 9:00am Pacifc (S.F.) Time.... [07­35829, 07­35834] (Hom, Howard) [Entered: 01/24/2008 09:30 AM]

03/10/2008

23

Filed order MEDIATION (AJ): Vacating Order to set briefing schedule in 07­35829 [07­35829, 07­35834]

2 pg, 23.74 KB (SC) [Entered: 03/10/2008 03:14 PM]

06/02/2008

24

Filed order MEDIATION (aj): An in­person mediation will be held on June 9, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S.

3 pg, 34.68 KB Courthouse, 6th Floor (Room 687), 550 W. Fort Street, Boise, Idaho. [07­35829, 07­35834] (BJB) [Entered:

06/02/2008 11:50 AM]

06/11/2008

25

2 pg, 33.89 KB

Filed order MEDIATION (aj): A further telephonic conference will be held on July 7, 2008, at 12:00 p.m. (Noon) Pacific (San Francisco) Time. In order to participate, the participants shall call (866) 207­0257, and give authorization code 51629486 to the attendant. [07­35829, 07­35834] (BJB) [Entered: 06/11/2008 02:52 PM]

06/11/2008

26

Filed order MEDIATION (aj): A further in­person mediation will be held on July 10, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., at the

2 pg, 31.65 KB U.S. Court of Appeals, 95 Seventh Street, Suite 109, San Francisco, California [telephone (415) 355­7900]. [07­35829, 07­35834] (BJB) [Entered: 06/11/2008 03:55 PM]

07/14/2008

27

Filed order MEDIATION (aj): On or before August 5, 2008, counsel for plaintiffs shall contact the

2 pg, 25.98 KB undersigned by phone [(415) 556­9906] or e­mail (Ann_Julius@ca9.uscourts.gov) to provide a status report.

[07­35829, 07­35834] (BJB) [Entered: 07/14/2008 11:57 AM]

08/06/2008

28

Filed order MEDIATION (aj): On or before September 5, 2008, counsel for plaintiffs shall contact the

2 pg, 26.13 KB undersigned by phone [(415) 556­9906] or e­mail (Ann_Julius@ca9.uscourts.gov) to provide a status report.

[07­35829, 07­35834] (BJB) [Entered: 08/06/2008 09:26 AM]

09/12/2008

29

Filed order MEDIATION (AJ): On or before September 25, 2008, counsel for plaintiffs shall contact the

2 pg, 25.77 KB undersigned by phone [(415) 556­9906] or e­mail to provide a status report. [07­35829, 07­35834] (BJB)

[Entered: 09/12/2008 09:35 AM]

10/02/2008

30

Filed order MEDIATION (AJ): On or before October 22, 2008, counsel for plaintiffs shall contact the

2 pg, 25.68 KB undersigned by phone [(415) 355­7906] or e­mail (Ann_Julius@ca9.uscourts.gov) to provide a status report.

[07­35829, 07­35834] (BJB) [Entered: 10/02/2008 09:57 AM]

11/03/2008

31

2 pg, 34.64 KB

Filed order MEDIATION (AJ): A telephonic status conference to discuss settlement documents with all interested counsel will be held on November 12, 2008, at 12:00 p.m. (Noon) Pacific (San Francisco) Time. A further telephonic conference, with counsel for defendants only, will be held on November 13, 2008, at 12:00 p.m. (Noon) Pacific (San Francisco) Time. A further telephonic conference, with counsel for plaintiff only, will be held on November 18, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. Pacific (San Francisco) Time. [07­35829, 07­35834] (BJB) [Entered: 11/03/2008 04:02 PM]

05/18/2009

32

2 pg, 26.33 KB

Filed order MEDIATION (AJ): The court is informed that the parties have reached a tentative settlement of their dispute. Within 14 days of the filing date of this order, the parties shall file either a motion or a stipulation to dismiss these matters pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), or shall contact the Circuit Mediator. A copy of any motion or stipulation to dismiss shall be faxed to the undersigned at (415) 355­8566, or emailed (ann_julius@ca9.uscourts.gov). [07­35829, 07­35834] (BJB) [Entered: 05/18/2009 02:29 PM]

08/04/2009

33

Filed 42b stipulation to dismiss. Served on 08/04/2009. [7016723] (CW) [Entered: 08/05/2009 11:28 AM]

6 pg, 170.88 KB

08/06/2009

34

2 pg, 24.55 KB

Order filed (Deputy Clerk: AJ) Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, these appeals are voluntarily dismissed. Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees on appeal. This order served on the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court. [7018500] [07­35829, 07­ 35834] (BJB) [Entered: 08/06/2009 12:27 PM]

Clear All

Documents and Docket Summary Documents Only

Include Page Numbers

0 Selected Pages:

0 KB Selected Size:

View Selected

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ­ 11/03/2018 13:03:58

PACER Login: CRClearinghouse

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report (filtered)

Search Criteria: 07­35829

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

0.40

 
 NCLR Press Releases

FOR July 30 2007

IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Media Contacts: Calla Devlin, Communications Director
National Center for Lesbian Rights 415.392.6257 x324
@nclrights.orgcdevlin@nclrights.org

Kerry Efigenio, Communications Manager Morrison & Foerster LLP 415.268.5066 kefigenio@mofo.com

FEDERAL JUDGE IN IDAHO ORDERS TREATMENT FOR TRANSGENDER INMATE

Groundbreaking decision first of its kind
(Boise, Idaho, July 30, 2007) – In a groundbreaking decision, a federal district court judge ruled Friday that the Idaho Department of Corrections must provide female hormone therapy to a transgender inmate while her case proceeds to trial in federal court in Boise, Idaho.

Jenniffer Spencer sued the Idaho Department of Corrections for failing to diagnose or treat her gender identity disorder, the current medical diagnosis applied to transsexual people. Gender identity disorder is a conflict between a person's physical sex and the person's psychological identity as male or female.
Despite Spencer's repeated requests for treatment for her condition— 75 in total—the department refused. Spencer attempted suicide when she learned that prison doctors would not provide any treatment for her gender identity disorder. Subsequently, she performed her own castration using a disposable razor blade in her prison cell, nearly bleeding to death in the process.

After Spencer removed her own testicles, the department continued to deny treatment for her gender identity disorder. Instead, the department prescribed male hormone therapy, which Spencer refused.

On Friday July 27, Judge Mikel Williams of the Federal District Court for the District of Idaho ruled that, based on extensive expert medical testimony, Spencer is entitled to receive female hormone therapy while her case is being decided. Judge Williams held that "gender identity disorder, left untreated, is a life-threatening mental health condition." Judge Williams found the prison's offer of testosterone was "medically unacceptable" and posed "an excessive risk" to Spencer's health. "In light of Plaintiff's significant mental health issues and the lack of comprehensive and meaningful re-evaluation of Plaintiff after his self-castration," Judge Williams stated, "the 'choice' offered to Plaintiff is really no choice at all."
"We are gratified that the court acknowledged that the State of Idaho's refusal to appropriately treat transgender persons is unacceptable," said James Schurz of Morrison & Foerster, one of the attorneys representing Spencer. "Judge Williams' decision ensures that Jenniffer will receive adequate and appropriate medical care."
Ms. Spencer is represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Morrison & Foerster LLP and Sheryl Musgrove.
Spencer, who legally changed her name earlier this year, is serving a 10 year sentence for possession of a stolen car and a failed escape attempt that occurred when she was a teenager. She is now 27 years old.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. www.nclrights.org
About Morrison & Foerster With more than one thousand lawyers in eighteen offices around the world, Morrison & Foerster offers clients comprehensive, global legal services in business and litigation. The firm is distinguished by its unsurpassed expertise in finance, life sciences, and technology, its legendary litigation skills, and an unrivaled reach across the Pacific Rim, particularly in Japan and China. www.mofo.com

 
 Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 1 of 31
CONMAG,IRDONE,LC6,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 5.1.1 (Boise − Southern)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05−cv−00257−MHW

Gammett v. Idaho State Board of Corrections et al Assigned to: Judge Mikel H. Williams Case in other court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 07−35829
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 07−35829 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/30/2005 Date Terminated: 11/30/2007 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Randall Gammett also known as Jenniffer Ann Spencer

represented by Bradley J Dixon Stoel Rives LLP 101 S Capitol Blvd Ste 1900 Boise, ID 83702 208−387−4284 Email: bjdixon@stoel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Clayton Tollefson Micron Technology, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Boise, ID 83707−0006 1−208−368−4527 Email: gtollefson@micron.com TERMINATED: 04/23/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Walter Sinclair STOEL RIVES 101 S Capitol Blvd #1900 Boise, ID 83702−7705 (208) 389−9000 Fax: (208) 389−9040 Email: jwsinclair@stoel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M Schurz MORRISON &FOERSTER LLP 425 Market St San Francisco, CA 94105−2482 (415) 268−6449 Email: jschurz@mofo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody Marksamer National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market St #370 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−392−6257 Email: jmarksamer@nclrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lea Candy Cooper ACLU of Idaho P.O. Box 1897 Boise, ID 83701

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 2 of 31
(208) 344−9750 Fax: (208) 433−9271 Email: lcooper@acluidaho.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena Ayoub National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market Street, Suite 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−392−6257 Fax: 415−392−8442 Email: lena@lenalaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mathew William Dos Santos MORRISON &FOERSTER 425 Market St San Francisco, CA 94114 Email: mdossantos@mofo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mia Anna Mazza Morrison &Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 268−6024 Fax: (415) 268−7522 Email: mmazza@mofo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Parisa Jorjani MORRISON &FOSTER 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 268−6576 Fax: (415) 268−7522 Email: pjorjani@mofo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Minter National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market Street, Suite 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 415 392 6257 Fax: 415−392−8442 Email: sminter@nclrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheryl L Musgrove PO Box 1894 Boise, ID 83701 208−340−6681 Email: slmusgrove@hotmail.com TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
V.

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 3 of 31

Defendant Idaho State Board of Corrections

represented by Phillip J Collaer ANDERSON JULIAN &HULL PO Box 7426 Boise, ID 83707−7426 (208) 344−5800 Fax: 1−208−344−5510 Email: pcollaer@ajhlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Carolyn Meline individually and in their official capacity as member of the Idaho State Board of Corrections

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Michael Loomis OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 1299 N Orchard Ste 10 Boise, ID 83706 (208) 658−2097 Fax: 1−208−327−7485 Email: wloomis@idoc.idaho.gov TERMINATED: 01/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Ralph Townsend individually and in their official capacity as member of the Idaho State Board of Corrections

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Michael Loomis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Dwight Board individually and in their official capacity as member of the Idaho State Board of Corrections

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Michael Loomis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Jim Tibbs individually and in their official capacity as member of the Idaho State Board of Corrections

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Michael Loomis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 4 of 31

Jay Nielsen individually and in their official capacity as member of the Idaho State Board of Corrections

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Michael Loomis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Thomas Beauclair individually and in his official capacity as Director of Idaho Department of Corrections

represented by Paul R Panther IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION P O Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720−0018 (208) 658−2097 Fax: 1−208−327−7485 Email: ppanther@idoc.idaho.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy R McNeese POB 186 Boise, ID 83631 (208) 392−4485 TERMINATED: 05/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

William Michael Loomis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
David Haas individually and in his official capacity as Medical Services Manager for IDOC

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Michael Loomis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Kevin Kemph individually and in his offficial capacity as Warden of Idaho Correctional Institute at Orofino

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 5 of 31

William Michael Loomis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Doctor Kruzich individually and in his official capacity as treating physician at ICIO TERMINATED: 10/11/2007

represented by Andrea Julian Fontaine HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS &HAWLEY PO Box 1617 Boise, ID 83701 208−344−6000 Fax: 208−342−3829 Email: afontaine@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bryan A Nickels Duke Scanlan &Hall, PLLC 1087 W. River Street, Suite 300 P O Box 7387 Boise, ID 83707 (208) 342−3310 Fax: (208) 342−3299 Email: ban@dukescanlan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James S Thomson , II POWERS TOLMAN FARLEY, PLLC 345 Bobwhite Court Suite 150 Boise, ID 83706 (208) 577−5100 Fax: (208) 577−5101 Email: jst@powerstolman.com LEAD ATTORNEY

John J Burke ELAM &BURKE, P.A. 251 E. Front St., Ste. 300 PO Box 1539 Boise, ID 83701−1539 (208) 343−5454 Email: jjb@elamburke.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph D McCollum , Jr HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS and HAWLEY POB 1617 Boise, ID 83701 (208) 344−6000 Email: jmccollum@hawleytroxell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R Points Points Law, PLLC 420 W. Main, Ste. 206 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 287−3216 Fax: 208−336−2088

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 6 of 31

Email: mpoints@pointslaw.com TERMINATED: 05/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ryan Thomas McFarland HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS &HAWLEY POB 1617 Boise, ID 83701 208−344−6000 Fax: 208−342−3829 Email: rmcfarland@hawleytroxell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Doctor Flerchinger individually and in his official capacity as Treating Physician at ICIO TERMINATED: 10/11/2007

represented by Andrea Julian Fontaine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph D McCollum , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R Points (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ryan Thomas McFarland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Edward Cheeney individually and in his official capacity as Social Worker at ICIO

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Debi Titus R.N., individually and in her official capacity as Inmate Nurse at ICIO TERMINATED: 10/11/2007

represented by Andrea Julian Fontaine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph D McCollum , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R Points (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ryan Thomas McFarland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 7 of 31

Defendant Greg Fisher individually and in his official capacity as Warden of Idaho Maximum Security Institute
Defendant Kenneth Khatain M.D., individually and in his official capacity as Chief Psychiatrist at IMSI and Member of the Management and Treatment Committee
Defendant Chad Sombke PhD., individually and in his official capacity as Chief Psychologist at IMSI and Member of the MTC

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Michael Loomis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Andrea Julian Fontaine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan A Nickels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
James S Thomson , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J Burke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph D McCollum , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Points (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ryan Thomas McFarland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Julian Fontaine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan A Nickels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
James S Thomson , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J Burke

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 8 of 31

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph D McCollum , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R Points (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ryan Thomas McFarland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jay Green individually and in his official capacity as Sargeant in charge of C−Block Medical Unit at IMSI and Member of the MTC TERMINATED: 12/21/2006

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Michael Loomis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Joslyn Patchette individually and in her official capacity as Nurse at IMSI and Member of the MTC TERMINATED: 12/21/2006

represented by John J Burke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph D McCollum , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R Points (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Prison Health Services a corporation doing business in the State of Idaho TERMINATED: 10/11/2007

represented by Andrea Julian Fontaine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph D McCollum , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R Points (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ryan Thomas McFarland

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 9 of 31

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Robin Sandy

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Vaughn Killeen

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John Hardison

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Mary Perrien

represented by Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Dr. Sharlene Green

represented by Bryan A Nickels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James S Thomson , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

John J Burke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Collaer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc

represented by Bryan A Nickels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James S Thomson , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J Burke (See above for address)

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 10 of 31
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/30/2005 06/30/2005 07/01/2005 07/01/2005
08/03/2005
08/03/2005
08/03/2005 08/03/2005 08/23/2005
09/01/2005
09/01/2005 09/06/2005
09/09/2005 09/30/2005 10/03/2005
10/06/2005

# Docket Text
1 MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT for fee waiver (prisoner) by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 7/25/2005 (ja, ) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
2 COMPLAINT and Demand for Jury Trial against all defendants− no summons issued, filed by Randall Gammett.(ja, ) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
3 ORDER of Conditional Filing (ja, )
4 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for plaintiffs and defendants re 2 Complaint (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
5 INITIAL REVIEW ORDER : GRANTING 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Randall Gammett. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
6 ORDER for Payment of Inmate Filing Fee be made from Prison Account of Randall Gammett. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, ) Modified on 8/3/2005 (ks): copy mailed to Tom Beauclair
7 CERTIFICATE of Clerk re 5 Order (ks, )
8 CERTIFICATE of Clerk re 5 Order(ks, )
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Thomas Beauclair, David Haas, Kevin Kemph, Greg Fisher, Jay Green, Carolyn Meline, Ralph Townsend, Dwight Board, Jim Tibbs, Jay Nielsen. Waiver sent on 8/18/2005, answer due 10/17/2005 (ja, )
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Joslyn Patchette, Prison Health Services. Doctor Kruzich waiver sent on 8/3/2005, answer due 10/3/2005; Doctor Flerchinger waiver sent on 8/3/2005, answer due 10/3/2005; Kenneth Khatain waiver sent on 8/3/2005, answer due 10/3/2005; Chad Sombke waiver sent on 8/3/2005, answer due 10/3/2005; Joslyn Patchette waiver sent on 8/3/2005, answer due 10/3/2005; Prison Health Services waiver sent on 8/3/2005, answer due 10/3/2005. (Points, Michelle)
11 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Idaho Department of Corrections.(Collaer, Phillip)
12 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Idaho Department of Corrections re 11 Answer to Complaint (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
13 CONSENT filed. (ja, )
14 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Joslyn Patchette, Prison Health Services.(Points, Michelle)
15 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Joslyn Patchette, Prison Health Services re 14 Answer to Complaint (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
16 CONSENT filed. (ja, )

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 11 of 31

10/17/2005 11/04/2005
11/14/2005 11/16/2005
11/16/2005 11/18/2005 11/21/2005 11/22/2005
12/02/2005 12/05/2005 12/05/2005 12/06/2005 12/12/2005
12/14/2005
12/19/2005 12/23/2005

17 CONSENT filed. (ja, )
18 ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING. Attorney Sheryl Musgrove is appointed lead counsel for plaintiff Randall Gammett. Status Conference set for 11/18/2005 10:00 AM in Boise, ID before Honorable Mikel H. Williams. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
19 MOTION to Take Deposition from Randall Gammett and Other Inmates (if necessary) by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Joslyn Patchette, Prison Health Services. Responses due by 12/8/2005 (Points, Michelle)
20 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING AND ORDER TO TRANSPORT INMATE Status Conference reset as to TIME ONLY for 11/18/2005 01:30 PM in Boise, ID before Honorable Mikel H. Williams.. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by wm, )
21 Notice #20 mailed to Dennis Dean and Greg Fisher, faxed to Sgt. Dorsey and hand delivered to US Marshal. (ks, )
22 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mikel H. Williams : Status Conference held on 11/18/2005. Order forthcoming. (Court Reporter V. Jones.) (al, )
23 Expedited MOTION to Appoint Expert by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 12/15/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Musgrove, Sheryl) (SEALED)
24 SCHEDULING ORDER granting 19 MOTION to Take Deposition from Randall Gammett and Other Inmates (if necessary) filed by Chad Sombke,, Doctor Kruzich,, Prison Health Services,, Kenneth Khatain,, Doctor Flerchinger,, Joslyn Patchette, Amended Pleadings due by 11/28/2005. Factual Discovery due by 5/19/2006. Motions due by 10/10/2006.. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dkh, )
25 RESPONSE to Motion re 23 Expedited MOTION to Appoint Expert filed by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Joslyn Patchette, Prison Health Services. (Points, Michelle)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by John J Burke on behalf of Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke (Burke, John)
27 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke.(Burke, John)
28 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11/18/05 before Judge Mikel H. Williams. Court Reporter: ESR− Vicki. This transcript is not available to the general public and as such is sealed. (ja, )
29 NOTICE by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke re 25 Response to Motion Defendant Chad Sombke, Ph.D. Kenneth Khatain, M.D., and Thomas Kruzich, M.D.'s Notice of Joinder in PHS Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Rule 706 Expert, Or Alternatively, for Payment of Independent Medical Examination (Thomson, James)
30 JOINDER by Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections joining 23 Expedited MOTION to Appoint Expert, 29 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) in PHS Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Apppointment of Rule 706 Expert, or Alternatively. for Payment of Independent Medical Examination. (Collaer, Phillip)
31 REPLY to Response to Motion re 23 Expedited MOTION to Appoint Expert filed by Randall Gammett. (Musgrove, Sheryl)
32 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Rule 706 Expert, or Alternatively, for Payment of Independent Medical Examination by Prison Health Services. Responses due by 1/16/2006

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 12 of 31

12/27/2005 12/29/2005 12/30/2005 01/03/2006 01/03/2006
01/03/2006
01/04/2006 01/04/2006
01/05/2006

(Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Rule 706 Expert, or Alternatively, for Payment of Independent Medical Examination)(Points, Michelle)
33 JOINDER by Defendants Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke joining 32 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Rule 706 Expert, or Alternatively, for Payment of Independent Medical Examination. (Thomson, James)
34 OPPOSITION to defs' 32 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Rule 706 Expert, or Alternatively, for Payment of Independent Medical Examination, 23 Expedited MOTION to Appoint Expert filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 1/13/2006. (Attachments: # 1)(Musgrove, Sheryl)
35 Expedited MOTION for Protective Order and Stay of Deposition by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 1/23/2006 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5)(Musgrove, Sheryl)
36 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 35 Expedited MOTION for Protective Order and Stay of Deposition filed by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke. Replies due by 1/18/2006. (Thomson, James)
37 JOINDER by Defendants Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Joslyn Patchette, Prison Health Services joining 36 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion Joinder in Defendants K.G. Khatain, M.D., Chad Sombke, PH.D., and Thomas Kruzich, M.D.'s Response to Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Enforce Agreement Regarding Deposition or Alternatively for Protective Order; and Motion for Stay of Deposition, Filed January 3, 2006. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Afffidavit of Michelle R. Points in Support of Joinder and Response to Plaintiff's Expedited Motion, Filed December 30, 2005 [Docket No. 35))(Points, Michelle)
38 ORDER STAYING DEPOSITION re: 35 The deposition of plaintiff, scheduled for 1/4/05 is STAYED until the court has resolved plaintiff's pending expedited Motion to Enforce Agreement Regarding Deposition or Alternatively for Protective Order. A telephone hearing on plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Enforce Agreement Regarding Deposition or Alternatively for Protective Order is set for 1/4/06 at 11:00am . Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
39 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mikel H. Williams : Motion Hearing held on 1/4/2006 re 35 Expedited MOTION for Protective Order and Stay of Deposition filed by Randall Gammett, motion denied, order forthcoming. Motion to Appoint Expert set for oral argument by phone 01/05/06 at 2:30PM. Counsel for plaintiff to initiate the call and when all parties are on the line connect the court at (208) 334−1504. (Court Reporter A. Hickox.) (al, )
40 ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING : Granting 32 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Rule 706 Expert, or Alternatively, for Payment of Independent Medical Examination filed by Prison Health Services; Denying 35 MOTION to enforce Agreement regarding deposition or for a Protective Order filed by Randall Gammett; Granting 19 defs' Motion to take deposition of Gammett and other inmates. Oral Argument on Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Appoint Expert shall be heard by telephon 1/5/06 at 2:30pm. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
41 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE Regarding the hearing on 23 Expedited MOTION to Appoint Expert: Motion Hearing set for 1/5/2005 02:30 PM in Boise, ID before Honorable Mikel H. Williams. This hearing will be in person rather than by telephone. All parties were notified by telephone. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by al, )

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 13 of 31

01/05/2006
01/06/2006
01/17/2006
01/20/2006
01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006 01/26/2006 02/22/2006
03/01/2006 03/14/2006 03/21/2006 03/21/2006 03/28/2006 04/19/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006

42 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mikel H. Williams : Motion Hearing held on 1/5/2006 re 23 Expedited MOTION to Appoint Expert filed by Randall Gammett, motion granted in part and denied in part. Order forthcoming. (Court Reporter A. Hickox.) (al, )
43 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 23 Expedited Motion to Appoint Expert . Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, ) (SEALED)
44 APPLICATION for preauthorization and approval of pla's retention of medical expert and certification of Court payment of expert fees and expenses by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 2/10/2006 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Musgrove, Sheryl) (SEALED).
45 ORDER: the Court will hereafer refer to plaintiff as "Plaintiff" without use of either masculine or feminine pronouns. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
46 RESPONSE to Motion re 44 MOTION to Appoint Expert filed by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Joslyn Patchette, Prison Health Services. Replies due by 2/8/2006. (Points, Michelle) (SEALED).
47 NOTICE by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke re 46 Response to Motion, 44 MOTION to Appoint Expert Notice of Joinder in PHS Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Application for Preauthorization and Approval of Plaintiff's Retention of Medical Expert and Certification of Court Payment of Expert Fees and Expenses (Thomson, James) (SEALED)
48 RESPONSE to Motion re 44 MOTION to Appoint Expert (Medical) and Certification of Court Payment of Expert Fees and Expenses filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 2/9/2006. (Collaer, Phillip) (SEALED)
49 REPLY to Response to Motion re 44 MOTION to Appoint Expert filed by Randall Gammett. (Musgrove, Sheryl) (SEALED)
50 ORDER finding as moot 44 Application for preauthorization and approval of plaintiff's retention of medical expert and certification of court payment of expert fees and expenses. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
51 SEALED ORDER (cc: Sheryl Musgrove, Finance Dept by ja). Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (ja) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
52 Expedited MOTION Access to Plaintiff by Consulting Expert by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 4/7/2006 (Musgrove, Sheryl)
53 RESPONSE to Motion re 52 Expedited MOTION Access to Plaintiff by Consulting Expert filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 4/4/2006. (Collaer, Phillip)
54 REPLY to Response to Motion re 52 Expedited MOTION Access to Plaintiff by Consulting Expert filed by Randall Gammett. (Musgrove, Sheryl)
55 ORDER granting 52 Motion for Access by Consulting Expert . Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
56 NOTICE of Appearance by John J Burke on behalf of Joslyn Patchette (Burke, John)
57 SEALED MOTION by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 5/15/2006 (dkh, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
58 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Parisa Jorjani by on behalf of Randall Gammett. Responses due by 5/15/2006 (dkh, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 14 of 31

04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006
05/01/2006
05/01/2006
05/03/2006
05/03/2006 05/03/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006

59 SEALED MOTION by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 5/15/2006 (dkh, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
60 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Shannon Minter by on behalf of Randall Gammett. Responses due by 5/15/2006 (dkh, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
61 SEALED MOTION by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 5/15/2006 (dkh, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
62 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Mia Anna Mazza by on behalf of Randall Gammett. Responses due by 5/15/2006 (dkh, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
63 SEALED MOTION by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 5/15/2006 (dkh, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
64 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Lena Ayoub by on behalf of Randall Gammett. Responses due by 5/15/2006 (dkh, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
67 ORDER re: Ex Parte 57 SEALED MOTION (SEALED). Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (ja) Modified on 5/4/2006 (ks): copies emailed to relevant counsel. (Entered: 05/04/2006)
70 ORDER granting 59 Ex Parte Sealed Motion (SEALED). Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, ) Modified on 5/4/2006 (ks): copies emailed to relevant counsel. (Entered: 05/04/2006)
72 ORDER re: 61 Ex Parte Sealed Motion (SEALED). Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, ) Modified on 5/4/2006 (ks): copies emailed to relevant counsel. (Entered: 05/04/2006)
74 ORDER granting 63 Ex Parte Sealed Motion (SEALED). Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, ) Modified on 5/4/2006 (ks): copies emailed to relevant counsel. (Entered: 05/04/2006)
65 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER − The parties are hereby notified that an opportunity exists for them to attend a settlement conference with Chief Judge David A. Ezra, District of Hawaii on May 9, 10, or 11, 2006. Also available to conduct a settlement conference is the Honorable Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 16 or 18, 2006 at the James A. McClure Federal Building &U.S. District Courthouse in Boise, Idaho. Counsel shall notify Denise Asper, the ADR Program Director, by Thursday, May 4, 2006, of their interest in and availability for a settlement conference on one of these dates. Ms. Asper can be reached at (208) 334−9067. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (sbh)
66 NOTICE of Appearance by Sheryl L Musgrove on behalf of Randall Gammett (Musgrove, Sheryl)
68 APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Parisa Jorjani on behalf of plaintiff Responses due by 5/30/2006 (ja) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
69 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER approving 58 Application for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Parisa Jorjani (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 68 APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE is a duplicate of docket #58 and should not have been re−docketed. Please disregard dkt #68. (ja)
71 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER granting 60 Application for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Shannon Minter for Randall Gammett (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 15 of 31

05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/05/2006 05/10/2006 05/11/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006 06/30/2006 07/05/2006
07/18/2006
07/18/2006 07/18/2006

73 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER approving 62 Application for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Mia Anna Mazza for Randall Gammett (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
75 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER granting 64 Application for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Lena Ayoub for Randall Gammett (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
76 ORDER regarding receipt of plas expert report. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by wm, )
77 MOTION to Vacate Deadlines In Initial Scheduling Order and Reset Schedule by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 5/30/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of S. Musgrove# 2 Exhibit A to S. Musgrove Decl.# 3 M. Mazza Declaration)(Jorjani, Parisa) Modified on 5/8/2006 to seal exhibit #2(jg, ).
78 NOTICE of Substitution − Attorney Joseph D McCollum, Jr and Joseph D McCollum, Jr for Doctor Kruzich and Doctor Flerchinger added. Attorney Michelle R Points terminated. (McCollum, Joseph)
79 STIPULATION Resetting Pretrial Schedule by Randall Gammett. (Jorjani, Parisa)
80 ORDER re 79 Stipulation filed by Randall Gammett, ADR Plan ddl 5/31/2006. Factual Discovery due by 9/19/2006. Dispositive Motions due by 3/2/2007.Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
NOTICE TO COURT that counsel Timothy R. McNeese, William M. Loomis wishes to no longer be noticed electronically on this case as of the date of this notice. (Panther, Paul)
81 NOTICE of Substitution − Attorney Paul R Panther for Thomas Beauclair added. Attorney Timothy R McNeese terminated. (Panther, Paul)
82 DOCKET TEXT NOTICE of Hearing:A Settlement Conference set for 8/9/2006 10:00 AM in Boise, ID before Honorable Larry M. Boyle. The Court shall enter an Order explaining the details of said Conference. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by lc, )
83 STIPULATION Resetting Pretrial Schedule by Idaho Department of Corrections, Thomas Beauclair, David Haas, Kevin Kemph, Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Edward Cheeney, Debi Titus, Greg Fisher, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Jay Green, Joslyn Patchette, Prison Health Services, Randall Gammett, Idaho State Board of Corrections, Carolyn Meline, Ralph Townsend, Dwight − Board, Jim Tibbs, Jay Nielsen. (Jorjani, Parisa)
84 ORDER re 83 Stipulation filed by Idaho State Board of Corrections, Carolyn Meline, Greg Fisher, Jay Green, Jay Nielsen, Idaho Department of Corrections, Thomas Beauclair, Chad Sombke, Doctor Kruzich, Ralph Townsend, Prison Health Services, Debi Titus, David Haas, Dwight Board, Kenneth Khatain, Randall Gammett, Jim Tibbs, Kevin Kemph, Doctor Flerchinger, Edward Cheeney, Joslyn Patchette, Finding as Moot 77 MOTION to Vacate Deadlines In Initial Scheduling Order and Reset Schedule filed by Randall Gammett. ADR Plan to be filed by 8/9/2006. Discovery due by 11/3/2006. Dispositive Motions due by 4/18/2007. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
85 ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Settlement Conference set for 8/9/2006 10:00 AM in Boise, ID before Honorable Mikel H. Williams. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
86 ORDER TO TRANSPORT INMATE for Settlement Conference set for 8/9/06 at 10am in Boise before Judge Boyle. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 16 of 31

07/18/2006
07/18/2006 07/19/2006 07/19/2006 07/31/2006 08/01/2006
08/04/2006
08/04/2006 08/04/2006 08/04/2006
08/18/2006 08/18/2006 08/18/2006 08/21/2006 09/05/2006
09/22/2006

be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
87 ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE re 85 Settlement Conference set for 8/9/2006 01:00 PM in Boise, ID before Honorable Larry M. Boyle. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, ) Modified on 7/18/2006 to correct text to relect the hearing is before Judge Boyle (ja, ).
88 AMENDED ORDER TO TRANSPORT re 86 Order . Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
89 Copies of #86 mailed to Dennis Dean and Warden, IMSI; copy faxed to Sgt. Dorsey (ks)
90 Copies of #88 mailed to Dennis Dean and Warden, IMSI; copy faxed to Sgt. Dorsey. (ks)
91 Expedited MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 8/24/2006 (Jorjani, Parisa)
92 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER granting 91 Motion to Continue. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the settlement conference scheduled to commence on August 9, 2006 is VACATED and will be rescheduled at a later date. . Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by mb, )
93 ORDER vacating 86 Order to transport and clarifying discovery procedures, . Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks, )
94 Copies of Order #93 faxed to Sgt. Dorsey and mailed to Dennis Dean and Warden at IMSI. (ks)
95 Expedited MOTION for Protective Order by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 8/28/2006 (Jorjani, Parisa)
96 Expedited MOTION to Compel Doc Production and Interrogatory Responses by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 8/28/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Jorjani Decl.# 3 Sealed Exhibits A−G to Jorjani Decl.# 4 Mazza Decl.)(Jorjani, Parisa) Modified on 8/10/2006 to seal exhibits A−G in attachment #3 (wm, ).
97 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 96 Expedited MOTION to Compel Doc Production and Interrogatory Responses filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 9/1/2006. (Collaer, Phillip)
98 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Phillip J. Collaer re 96 Expedited MOTION to Compel Doc Production and Interrogatory Responses filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 9/1/2006. (Collaer, Phillip)
99 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Inmate John Doe re 96 Expedited MOTION to Compel Doc Production and Interrogatory Responses filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 9/1/2006. (Collaer, Phillip)
100 MOTION for Protective Order by Idaho Department of Corrections. Responses due by 9/14/2006 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Collaer, Phillip)
101 REPLY to Response to Motion re 96 Expedited MOTION to Compel Doc Production and Interrogatory Responses and Response to Defs' Motion for Protective Order filed by Randall Gammett. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Declaration of P. Jorjani# 2 Exhibit A−F to Supplemental P. Jorjani Decl.)(Jorjani, Parisa)
102 NOTICE by Randall Gammett of Service of Discovery (Jorjani, Parisa)

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 17 of 31

09/25/2006 10/06/2006 10/11/2006 10/11/2006 10/17/2006 10/17/2006 10/17/2006 10/23/2006 10/25/2006
10/27/2006 10/27/2006 10/30/2006
11/03/2006

CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 102 Notice (Other) filed by Randall Gammett, was filed incorrectly in this case. As per L.R. 5.4, in the future, please do not file notices of services of discovery. (ta, )
103 MOTION for Protective Order by Correctional Medical Services, Inc.. Responses due by 10/30/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support of Correctional Medical Services, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order# 2 Affidavit Affidavit of John J. Burke in Support of Correctional Medical Services, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order)(Burke, John)
104 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 103 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 10/25/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of P. Jorjani# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G)(Jorjani, Parisa)
105 SUPPLEMENT by Plaintiff Randall Gammett re 96 Expedited MOTION to Compel Doc Production and Interrogatory Responses −Supplemental Declaration of M. Mazza. (Jorjani, Parisa)
106 REPLY to Response to Motion re 103 MOTION for Protective Order Correction Medical Services, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order filed by Correctional Medical Services, Inc.. (Thomson, James)
107 AFFIDAVIT in Support by John J. Burke re 103 MOTION for Protective Order Affidavit of John J. Burke in Support of Correctional Medical Services, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order filed by Correctional Medical Services, Inc.. (Thomson, James)
108 MOTION for Protective Order by Sharlene Green. Responses due by 11/13/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Affidavit)(Burke, John)
109 STIPULATION Resetting Pretrial Schedule by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Joslyn Patchette, Prison Health Services, Randall Gammett. (Jorjani, Parisa)
110 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE of Telephone Hearing: Discovery Hearing set for 10/30/2006 10:00 AM, MST, in Boise, ID before Honorable Mikel H. Williams. This hearing will be by telephone. Counsel for the State of Idaho to initiate the call and when all parties are on the line connect the Courtroom at (208) 334−1504. To ensure a clean record all parties should identify themselves each time they speak. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by al, )
111 NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDER At the telephonic hearing on October 30, 2006 at 10:00a.m., the parties shall be prepared to discuss the feasibility of the terms of the attached proposed Order. Dispositive motions shall be filed by 8/17/07. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
112 NOTICE by Correctional Medical Services, Inc. re 103 MOTION for Protective Order (Thomson, James)
113 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mikel H. Williams : Motion Hearing held on 10/30/2006 re 103 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 96 Expedited MOTION to Compel Doc Production and Interrogatory Responses filed by Randall Gammett, 95 Expedited MOTION for Protective Order filed by Randall Gammett, 108 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Sharlene Green, 100 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Oral argument heard. Motions taken under advisement. Counsel to submit a joint proposed order to the court within 10 days and if they disagree to a paragraph to set it out in italic and under it each party to state their dispute to that paragraph. (Court Reporter A. Hickox.) (al, )
114 ORDER granting 109 Stipulation resetting pretrial schedule filed by Chad Sombke, Debi Titus, Doctor Flerchinger, Prison Health Services, Joslyn Patchette, Randall Gammett, Kenneth Khatain, Doctor Kruzich Discovery due by 3/5/2007. Motions due by 8/17/2007.. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 18 of 31

11/10/2006 11/13/2006 11/13/2006
11/30/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 12/05/2006 12/06/2006 12/06/2006 12/07/2006 12/08/2006 12/19/2006 12/20/2006
12/20/2006 12/21/2006

Filing (NEF) by dks, )
115 NOTICE by Sharlene Green Notice of Withdrawal of Dr. Sharlene Green's Motion for Protective Order (Thomson, James)
116 STIPULATION RE: CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DOCKET NO. 103] by Correctional Medical Services, Inc.. (Thomson, James)
117 STIPULATION re 103 MOTION for Protective Order, 95 Expedited MOTION for Protective Order, 100 MOTION for Protective Order Stipulated Proposed Protective Order by Randall Gammett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Qualified Protective Order# 2 Exhibit B − Questionnaire re Nonparties)(Mazza, Mia)
118 NOTICE by Randall Gammett of Name Change (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Jorjani, Parisa)
119 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 12/26/2006 (Jorjani, Parisa)
120 MEMORANDUM in Support re 119 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Randall Gammett. (Jorjani, Parisa)
121 DECLARATION of Parisa Jorjani re 119 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, 120 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Randall Gammett. (Jorjani, Parisa)
122 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Randall Gammett.(Jorjani, Parisa)
123 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 119 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Joslyn Patchette. Replies due by 12/19/2006. (Thomson, James)
124 JOINDER by Defendants Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Joslyn Patchette, Prison Health Services joining 123 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Amend Complaint 119 . (Julian, Andrea)
125 NOTICE of Change of Address by Sheryl L Musgrove (Musgrove, Sheryl)
126 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 119 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Idaho State Board of Corrections. Replies due by 12/21/2006. (Collaer, Phillip)
127 NOTICE of Change of Address by Sheryl L Musgrove (Musgrove, Sheryl)
128 MEMORANDUM in Support re 119 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Randall Gammett. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of P. Jorjani# 2 Exhibit 1 to Suppl. Jorjani Decl.)(Jorjani, Parisa)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 128 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Randall Gammett was filed using the incorrect docket event. The filing party shall re−submit their filing using "Reply to Response to Motion" located under Responses &Replies to satisfy the motion reply deadline. (ja)
129 REPLY to Response to Motion re 119 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Randall Gammett. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of P. Jorjani# 2 Exhibit 1 to Supplemental P. Jorjani Declaration)(Jorjani, Parisa)
130 ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS; QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER, Granting 100 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Idaho Department of Corrections, Granting 96 Expedited MOTION to Compel Doc Production and Interrogatory Responses filed by Randall Gammett, Withdrawn and deemed Moot 108 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Sharlene Green, Granting 103 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Granting 119 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Randall Gammett, Granting 95 Expedited MOTION for Protective Order filed by Randall Gammett. Discovery due by 7/27/2007. Dispositive Motions due by 12/14/2007.. Signed by

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 19 of 31

12/21/2006
12/21/2006 12/21/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006
12/22/2006
12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/26/2006 01/08/2007
01/08/2007
01/08/2007 01/11/2007 01/16/2007 01/16/2007
01/16/2007

Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
131 CERTIFICATE of Clerk Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons re 122 Amended Complaint, 130 Order mailed to Phillip J. Collaer, Anderson Julian &Hull, P.O. Box 7426, Boise ID 83707−7426 (ja)
132 CERTIFICATE of Clerk− Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons re 122 Amended Complaint, 130 Order mailed to John Burke, Hall Farley, P.O. Box 1271, Boise ID 83701 (ja)
133 SEALED QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER for nonparties. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (ja, ) Modified on 12/27/2006 (ks): copies mailed and emailed to counsel indicated on NEF per Janis, sealed only from public
134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 1/16/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Mazza, Mia)
135 AFFIDAVIT re 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Randall Gammett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E to Jorjani Affidavit# 2 Exhibit F to Jorjani Affidavit# 3 Exhibit Y−Z of Jorjani Affidavit# 4 Exhibit DD to Jorjani Affidavit)(Mazza, Mia)
136 Sealed Document Re: 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 135 Affidavit,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, G, H# 2 Exhibit I−K# 3 Exhibit L−N# 4 Exhibit O−Q# 5 Exhibit R−T# 6 Exhibit U−X# 7 Exhibit AA−CC# 8 Exhibit EE−HH)(Mazza, Mia)
137 AFFIDAVIT of RIchard Christensen re 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Randall Gammett (with Exhibit A). (Mazza, Mia)
138 Sealed Document Re: 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 137 Affidavit. (Mazza, Mia)
139 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Plaintiff's MPA In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 134−2) by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 1/19/2007 (Mazza, Mia)
140 ORDER granting 139 Motion for Leave to File Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction in excess of Local Rule 7.1 Page Limitation. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
141 Defendants Chad Sombke, Ph.D., Kenneth Khatain, M.D., and Thomas Kruzich, M.D.'s Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial ANSWER to Complaint by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke.(Thomson, James)
142 PHS Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Prison Health Services.(Julian, Andrea)
143 MOTION to Dismiss by Idaho Department of Corrections. Responses due by 2/5/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Affidavit)(Collaer, Phillip)
144 NOTICE of Appearance by Lance Hester on behalf of Doe, Jane (Hester, Lance)
145 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Defendants by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Prison Health Services. Responses due by 2/9/2007 (Julian, Andrea)
146 Sealed Document Re: 133 Order, Sealed Order Objection by Non−Party Jane Doe. (Hester, Lance)

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 20 of 31

01/17/2007
01/17/2007
01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/24/2007 01/24/2007 01/30/2007
01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007
01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/31/2007

147 RESPONSE to Motion re 145 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by DefendantsJoint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Defendants filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 1/31/2007. (Jorjani, Parisa)
148 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Parisa Jorjani re 145 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by DefendantsJoint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Defendants filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 1/31/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N)(Jorjani, Parisa)
149 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. (Burke, John)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Correctional Medical Services answer due 2/28/2007. This is a court utility event only. See Order dkt #130 (ja)
150 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 143 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 2/7/2007. (Jorjani, Parisa)
151 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Parisa Jorjani re 143 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 2/7/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Jorjani, Parisa)
152 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction CMS Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. Replies due by 2/13/2007. (Thomson, James)
153 Sealed Document Affidavit of Chad Sombke, Ph.D. (Thomson, James)
154 Sealed Document Affidavit of Sharlene Green, Psy.D. (Thomson, James)
155 Sealed Document Affidavit of Kenneth Khatain, M.D.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibits B − F)(Thomson, James)
156 AFFIDAVIT of Lori Kohler, M.D. filed by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. (Thomson, James)
157 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 2/13/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Anne Lawrence, MD# 2 Affidavit Richard Haas# 3 Affidavit Phillip J. Collaer)(Collaer, Phillip)
158 AFFIDAVIT of James S. Thomson, II filed by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. (Thomson, James)
159 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Richard B. Christensen, MD re 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 2/13/2007. (Collaer, Phillip)
160 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages CMS Defendants' Motion to Exceed Page Limits by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. Responses due by 2/23/2007 (Thomson, James)
161 RESPONSE to Motion re 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Prison Health Services. Replies due by 2/13/2007. (Julian, Andrea)
162 Sealed Document Re: 161 Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Julian, Andrea)
163 REPLY to Response to Motion re 145 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by DefendantsJoint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 21 of 31

01/31/2007 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/16/2007 02/16/2007
02/16/2007 02/16/2007 02/16/2007 02/21/2007

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Defendants Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Joint Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke. (Thomson, James)
164 JOINDER by Defendants Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Prison Health Services joining 163 Reply to Response to Motion,, to Extend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Julian, Andrea)
165 RESPONSE to Motion re 145 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by DefendantsJoint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Defendants filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 2/15/2007. (Collaer, Phillip)
166 MEMORANDUM in Support re 143 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 165 Response to Motion, filed by Idaho Department of Corrections was filed using the incorrect docket event in this case. The filing party shall re−submit their filing using "Joinder" located under Other Documents. (ja, )
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 166 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Idaho Department of Corrections was filed using the incorrect docket event. The filing party shall re−submit their filing using "Reply to Response to Motion" located under Responses and Replies so the reply deadline gets satisfied. (ja, )
167 JOINDER by Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections joining 163 Reply to Response to Motion,,. (Collaer, Phillip)
168 REPLY to Response to Motion re 143 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
170 Sealed Document Re: 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Reply in Support of Motion. (Mazza, Mia)
171 Sealed Document Re: 170 Sealed Document Supplemental Affidavit of Parisa Jorjani. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit 18# 19 Exhibit 19# 20 Exhibit 20# 21 Exhibit 21# 22 Exhibit 22# 23 Exhibit 23# 24 Exhibit 24# 25 Exhibit 25# 26 Exhibit 26# 27 Exhibit 27# 28 Exhibit 28# 29 Exhibit 29# 30 Exhibit 30# 31 Exhibit 31# 32 Exhibit 32# 33 Exhibit 33# 34 Exhibit 34# 35 Exhibit 35# 36 Exhibit 36# 37 Exhibit 37# 38 Exhibit 38# 39 Exhibit 39# 40 Exhibit 40# 41 Exhibit 41# 42 Exhibit 42# 43 Exhibit 43# 44 Exhibit 44# 45 Exhibit 45# 46 Exhibit 46# 47 Exhibit 47# 48 Exhibit 48# 49 Exhibit 49# 50 Exhibit 50)(Mazza, Mia)
172 Sealed Document Re: 170 Sealed Document Affidavit of George R. Brown, M.D.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N)(Jorjani, Parisa)
173 Sealed Document Re: 170 Sealed Document Affidavit of Denise Taylor, M.D.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M)(Jorjani, Parisa)
174 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Excess of L. Civ.R. 7.1 Page Limitation by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 3/12/2007 (Jorjani, Parisa)
175 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Production of Documents by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 3/19/2007 (Mazza, Mia)

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 22 of 31

02/21/2007 02/21/2007
02/22/2007
02/22/2007 02/27/2007 02/27/2007 02/28/2007 03/02/2007 03/15/2007 03/19/2007 03/19/2007 03/19/2007 03/19/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007

176 MOTION to Compel Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Docket 175 by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 3/19/2007 (Mazza, Mia)
177 AFFIDAVIT of Parisa Jorjani re 176 MOTION to Compel Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Docket 175, 175 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Production of Documents filed by Randall Gammett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit P# 17 Exhibit Q# 18 Exhibit R# 19 Exhibit S# 20 Exhibit T# 21 Exhibit U# 22 Exhibit V# 23 Exhibit W# 24 Exhibit X# 25 Exhibit Y)(Mazza, Mia)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 176 MOTION to Compel Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Docket 175 filed by Randall Gammett was filed using the incorrect docket event as it is not a motion. The filing party shall re−submit their filing using "Memorandum in Support of Motion" located under Responses and Replies. (ja)
178 MEMORANDUM in Support re 175 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Production of Documents filed by Randall Gammett. (Mazza, Mia)
179 MOTION to Strike 171 Sealed Document,,, 172 Sealed Document, 173 Sealed Document, by Idaho Department of Corrections. Responses due by 3/23/2007 (Collaer, Phillip)
180 MEMORANDUM in Support re 179 MOTION to Strike 171 Sealed Document,,, 172 Sealed Document, 173 Sealed Document, filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
181 DEFEDANTS CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC AND SHARLENE GREEN, PSY.D's ANSWER to Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial by Correctional Medical Services.(Thomson, James)
182 JOINDER by Defendants Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services joining 179 MOTION to Strike 171 Sealed Document,,, 172 Sealed Document, 173 Sealed Document,. (Burke, John)
RECEIPT: CV Comp Fee Received $70.00, receipt #5114; $40.00, receipt 2015. Balance due $140.00. (bc, ) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
183 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 175 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Production of Documents filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 4/2/2007. (Collaer, Phillip)
184 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Mary Robinson re 175 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Production of Documents filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 4/2/2007. (Collaer, Phillip)
185 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 175 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Production of Documents filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 4/2/2007. (Collaer, Phillip)
186 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Phillip J. Collaer re 175 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Production of Documents filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 4/2/2007. (Collaer, Phillip)
187 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 179 MOTION to Strike 171 Sealed Document,,, 172 Sealed Document, 173 Sealed Document, filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 4/6/2007. (Mazza, Mia)
188 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Chris Chiang re 179 MOTION to Strike 171 Sealed Document,,, 172 Sealed Document, 173 Sealed Document, filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 4/6/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Mazza, Mia)
189 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Parisa Jorjani re 179 MOTION to Strike 171 Sealed Document,,, 172 Sealed Document, 173 Sealed Document, filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 4/6/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F# 2 Exhibit G)(Mazza, Mia)

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 23 of 31

03/30/2007
04/02/2007 04/05/2007 04/05/2007 04/19/2007 04/20/2007 04/20/2007
04/23/2007 04/25/2007 04/26/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007
05/08/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007

190 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by Defendants Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services re 130 Protective Order, Terminate Motions, Set Deadlines,,,,,,,,, DEFENDANTS SHARLENE GREEN, PSY.D., AND CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.'S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER OF DECEMBER 21, 2006 [DOCKET NO. 130]. (Burke, John)
191 REPLY to Response to Motion re 179 MOTION to Strike 171 Sealed Document,,, 172 Sealed Document, 173 Sealed Document, filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
192 JOINDER by Defendant Correctional Medical Services joining 191 Reply to Response to Motion to Strike Docket Nos. 171−173 (Dockets Nos. 187, 188 and 189). (Thomson, James)
193 REPLY to Response to Motion re 176 MOTION to Compel Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Docket 175, 175 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Production of Documents filed by Randall Gammett. (Mazza, Mia)
194 CONSENT filed. (ja, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 195 Order. E−mailed to all parties by ja (ja, )
Set Deadlines/Hearings: This is a court utility event only., Set/Reset Deadlines as to 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. This is a court utility event only. Settlement Conference set for 7/10/2007 09:30 AM in Boise, ID before Honorable B. Lynn Winmill. Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2007 09:30 AM in Boise, ID before Honorable Mikel H. Williams. (ja, ) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: This is a court utility event only. Case Management deadline set for 4/27/2007 to file a motion to dismiss. (ja, )
Remark− Please disregard the utility event setting case management deadline for 4/27/07, it was set in error. (ja)
196 ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED TO PROCEED BEFORE A US MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (ja, )
197 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Discovery by Dr. Sharlene Green. Responses due by 5/24/2007 (Nickels, Bryan) Modified on 5/1/2007 to edit text (ja).
198 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 197 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Discovery filed by Dr. Sharlene Green. (Nickels, Bryan) Modified on 5/1/2007 to edit text (ja, ).
199 AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN J. BURKE in support of Dr. Sharlene Green's 197 MOTION forExtension of Time to Answer Discovery filed by Sharlene Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E)(Nickels, Bryan) Modified on 5/1/2007 to edit text (ja, ).
200 NOTICE by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services re 197 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Notice of Withdrawal of Motion [Docket No. 197] (Thomson, James)
201 MOTION to Stay re Certificate of Service Order of April 20, 2007 by Doe, Jane. Responses due by 6/11/2007 (Hester, Lance)
202 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Doe, Jane. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 247081. (Notice sent by e−mail to Court Reporter) (Hester, Lance) (Court of Appeals #07−35490)
203 APPEAL DOCKETING STATEMENT re 202 Notice of Appeal : by Unknown Doe, Jane (Hester, Lance)
204 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 7/10/2007 HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED BY THE COURT FOR 6/29/2007 09:00 AM in Boise, ID before Honorable B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by lg, )

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 24 of 31

05/21/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/12/2007
06/12/2007 06/12/2007 06/15/2007
06/20/2007 06/20/2007 06/22/2007 06/22/2007 06/29/2007 06/29/2007 06/29/2007
06/29/2007 07/06/2007

205 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 202 Notice of Appeal (ja)
206 RESPONSE to Motion re 201 MOTION to Stay re Certificate of Service Order of April 20, 2007 filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 6/28/2007. (Jorjani, Parisa)
207 Sealed Document Re: 206 Response to Motion Affidavit of Parisa Jorjani in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Non−Party Jane Does' Motion for Stay of Order of District Court Regarding Release of Redacted Medical Records. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Jorjani, Parisa)
208 TRANSPORT ORDER; IDOC to take appropriate measures to transport Prisoner Gammett to Courtroom 3 on 6/29/07 beginning at 9:00am (Notice sent to USMS) Settlement Conference set for 6/29/2007 09:00 AM in Boise, ID before Honorable B. Lynn Winmill. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, ) Modified on 6/12/2007 (ks): copies emailed to Dean, Dorsey, House, Cluney, USMS and CSOs, copies also faxed to numbers indicated in order and USMS.
209 ORDER re 208 Transport Order. Judicially supervised mediation conference set for 6/29/07 at 9:00am in Boise, Courtroom 3 before Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
210 Fax Confirmation for Order #208. (ks)
211 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2007 has been moved to begin at 02:00 PM in Boise, ID before Honorable Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by al, )
212 STIPULATION re 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
213 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Jane Doe re 202 Notice of Appeal (Notice sent by e−mail to Court Reporter) Transcript due by 6/20/2007. (Hester, Lance)
214 CERTIFICATE of Record on Appeal by Jane Doe re 202 Notice of Appeal (No transcripts requested) cc:9cca (ja)
215 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Idaho Department of Corrections.(Collaer, Phillip)
216 APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE − Mathew William Dos Santos on behalf of Randall J. Gammett aka Jenniffer Anne Spencer. Responses due by 7/26/2007 (ja)
217 APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE Jody Marksamer on behalf of Randall J.Gammett aka Jenniffer Anne Spencer. Responses due by 7/26/2007 (ja, )
218 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER approving 216 , 217 Application for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Mathew William Dos Santos and Jody Marksamer for Randall Gammett Per General Order 206, out−of−state counsel shall immediately register for ECF. (Notice sent to CM/ECF Registration Clerk) (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
219 DOCKET ENTRY Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge B. Lynn Winmill : Settlement Conference held on 06/29/2007. Case did not settle. (Court Reporter Vicki Jones (ESR).) (lg, ) Modified on 7/2/2007 (lg, ). (Entered: 07/02/2007)
220 ORDER to Transport; IDOC to take appropriate measures to transport Plaintiff to US District Court on 7/11/07 beginning at 2:00pm (Notice sent to USMS). Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 25 of 31

07/08/2007 07/11/2007 07/19/2007 07/19/2007 07/19/2007 07/20/2007
07/20/2007
07/24/2007 07/26/2007 07/27/2007
07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/31/2007

the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
221 copies of Transport Order #220 faxed and emailed as indicated in Order. (ks)
222 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mikel H. Williams : Motion Hearing held on 7/11/2007 re 134 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Randall Gammett. Motion taken under advisement (Court Reporter A Hickox.) (al, ) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
223 MOTION to Stay Plaintiff's Expedited Motion For Stay of Deposition by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 8/13/2007 (Dos Santos, Mathew)
224 AFFIDAVIT of Mathew W. dos Santos re 223 MOTION to Stay Plaintiff's Expedited Motion For Stay of Deposition filed by Randall Gammett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6)(Dos Santos, Mathew)
225 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Phillip J. Collaer re 223 MOTION to Stay Plaintiff's Expedited Motion For Stay of Deposition filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Replies due by 8/6/2007. (Collaer, Phillip)
226 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER granting 223 Expedited Motion for Stay of Deposition. The deposition set by Defendants for July 23, 2007 is vacated and shall be rescheduled for July 30, 2007 or another mutually agreeable date. The Court's previous deadline for factual discovery shall be extended to September 14, 2007 in order to facilitate the completion of witness depositions. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by al, )
227 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction EXPEDITED MOTION TO AUGMENT RECORD RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. Responses due by 8/13/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Memorandum in Support)(Nickels, Bryan)
228 JOINDER by Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections joining 227 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction EXPEDITED MOTION TO AUGMENT RECORD RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. (Collaer, Phillip)
229 JOINDER by Defendants Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Prison Health Services joining 227 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction EXPEDITED MOTION TO AUGMENT RECORD RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. (Julian, Andrea)
230 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting plas 134 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; dfts shall notify the Court within ten (10) days of this order if they are unable to procure a prescription from an Idaho−licensed doctor for the hormone or provide psychotherapy to address plas gender issues; granting 160 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; denying 227 Motion to augment record re: Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by wm, )
231 ORDER re nonparty motion for stay, denying 201 Motion for Stay of order of District Court regarding release of redacted medical records. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by wm, )
232 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 8/20/2007 (Musgrove, Sheryl)
233 ORDER granting 232 Motion for Substitution of Counsel. Added attorney J Walter Sinclair, Gregory C Tollefson, and Bradley J Dixon for Randall Gammett. Attorney Sheryl L Musgrove terminated. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 26 of 31

08/10/2007
08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007
08/10/2007
08/10/2007 08/13/2007 08/13/2007 08/15/2007 08/15/2007

234 Sealed Document Re: 230 Memorandum Decision and Order Affidavit of Phillip J. Collaer in Support of Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Raycal Burright Transcript# 2 Exhibit Amanda Lamb Transcript# 3 Exhibit Jennifer Dickson Transcript# 4 Exhibit Apolonio Contreras Transcript# 5 Exhibit Augustine Contreras Transcript# 6 Exhibit Transcript of July 11, 2007 hearing)(Collaer, Phillip) Modified on 8/13/2007 to link to dkt #237 (ja).
235 Sealed Document Re: 230 Memorandum Decision and Order Second Affidavit of Anne A. Lawrence, MD. (Collaer, Phillip) Modified on 8/13/2007 to edit text and link to dkt #237 (ja).
236 Sealed Document Re: 230 Memorandum Decision and Order Brief in Support of Motion for Reconsideration. (Collaer, Phillip) Modified on 8/13/2007 to edit text and link to dkt #237 (ja).
237 MOTION for Reconsideration re 230 Memorandum Decision and Order on by Idaho Department of Corrections. Responses due by 9/4/2007 (Collaer, Phillip) Modified on 8/13/2007 to edit text (ja).
238 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 7/11/07 before Judge Mikel H. Williams. Court Reporter: ESR− Amy. This transcript is not available to the general public and as such is sealed. (ja, )
239 JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO TERMINATE re 230 Memorandum Decision and Order CMS and PHS Defendants' Joint Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Terminate by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Prison Health Services, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. Responses due by 9/4/2007 (Burke, John) Modified on 8/13/2007 to edit text (ja).
240 Sealed Document Re: 230 Memorandum Decision and Order Memorandum in Support of CMS and PHS Defendants' Joint Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Terminate. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of James S. Thomson, II, in Support of CMS and PHS Defendants' Joint Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Terminate# 2 Second Affidavit of Lori Kohler, M.D.)(Burke, John) Modified on 8/13/2007 to edit text and link to dkt #239 (ja, ).
241 Sealed Document Re: 230 Memorandum Decision and Order CMS Defendants' Notice to Court Pursuant to Memorandum Decision and Order of July 27, 2007. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of April Dawson, M.D., in Support of CMS Defendants' Notice to Court Pursuant to Memorandum Decision and Order of July 27, 2007)(Burke, John) Modified on 8/13/2007 to edit text (ja).
242 JOINDER by Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections joining 239 JOINT MOTION for Reconsideration and Motion to Terminate re 230 Memorandum Decision and Order CMS and PHS Defendants' Joint Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Terminate . (Collaer, Phillip) Modified on 8/14/2007 to edit text (ja).
243 JOINDER by Defendants Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services joining 237 MOTION for Reconsideration re 230 Memorandum Decision and Order (Nickels, Bryan) Modified on 8/14/2007 to edit text (ja).
244 TRIAL SETTING ORDER Jury Trial set for 11/5/2007 09:30 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Mikel H. Williams. Pretrial Conference set for 10/10/2007 10:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Mikel H. Williams.. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
245 ORDER Denying defendants' request for oral argument on the Motions for Reconsideration and Motions to Terminate Injunctive Relief. re 237 MOTION for Reconsideration re 230 Memorandum Decision and Order, 239 MOTION for Reconsideration and to Terminate Injunctive Relief re 230 Memorandum Decision and Order. Plaintiff's counsel shall file a response to Defendants' Motions in accordance with the directives set forth above within seven (7)days. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 27 of 31

08/15/2007 08/17/2007
08/17/2007
08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/20/2007 08/20/2007 08/20/2007
08/21/2007
08/27/2007
09/06/2007
09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 239 MOTION re 230 Order, 237 MOTION for Reconsideration re 230 Order. This is a court utility event only. Responses due by 8/27/2007 (ja, )
246 Sealed Document Re: 237 MOTION for Reconsideration re 230 Memorandum Decision and Order, 239 MOTION for Reconsideration re 230 Memorandum Decision and Order Opposition to Motions for Reconsideration. (Jorjani, Parisa) Modified on 8/20/2007 to edit text (ja, ).
247 Sealed Document Re: 246 Sealed Document,,, Affidavit of Parisa Jorjani in Support of Opposition to Motions for Reconsideration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10)(Jorjani, Parisa)
248 Sealed Document Re: 246 Sealed Document,,, Second Affidavit of Dr. George Brown. (Jorjani, Parisa)
249 Sealed Document Re: 246 Sealed Document,,, Proposed Treatment Regime. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Jorjani, Parisa)
250 MOTION to Vacate 244 Order, Set Hearings,, Trial Setting by Idaho Department of Corrections. Responses due by 9/13/2007 (Collaer, Phillip)
251 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Phillip J. Collaer re 250 MOTION to Vacate 244 Order, Set Hearings,, Trial Setting filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
252 MOTION for Scheduling Conference by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Prison Health Services. Responses due by 9/13/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Of Joseph D. McCollum Jr. in Support of Motion for Scheduling Conference)(McFarland, Ryan)
253 JOINDER by Defendants Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services joining 252 MOTION for Hearing − Motion for Scheduling Conference. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Nickels, Bryan)
254 RESPONSE to Defendant's 250 Motion to Vacate 244 Order and 252 MOTION for Scheduling Conference, (Docket Nos. 250, 252, 253) filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 9/14/2007. (Dos Santos, Mathew) Modified on 8/28/2007 to edit and to link to #253 (ja).
255 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Thomas Kruzich, M.D., Fraun Flerchinger, M.D., and Debi Titus by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Prison Health Services. Responses due by 10/1/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Defendants Kruzich, Flerchinger and Titus' Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment# 3 Affidavit of Thomas Kruzich, M.D., in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment# 4 Affidavit of Andrea L. Julian in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment)(Julian, Andrea)
256 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Idaho Department of Corrections. Responses due by 10/1/2007 (Collaer, Phillip)
257 Statement of Facts re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
258 MEMORANDUM in Support re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
259 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Richard Haas re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
260 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Edward Cheeney re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip) Modified on 9/10/2007 to seal due to medical memo (ja, ).
261 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Mary Robinson re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip) Modified on

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 28 of 31

09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007
09/27/2007 09/28/2007 09/28/2007 09/28/2007 09/28/2007

9/10/2007 to seal due to medical information (ja, ).
262 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Phillip J. Collaer re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
263 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Ralph Townsend re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
264 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Dwight Board re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
265 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Jay Nielsen re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
266 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Carolyn Meline re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
267 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Robin Sandy re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
268 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Jim Tibbs re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
269 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Mary Perrien re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
270 AFFIDAVIT in Support by John Hardison re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
271 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Kevin Kempf re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
272 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Greg Fisher re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
273 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Vaughan Killeen re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
274 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Thomas Beauclair re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
275 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Idaho Department of Corrections. Responses due by 10/1/2007 (Collaer, Phillip)
276 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Conditionally granting 250 MOTION to Vacate 244 Order filed by Idaho Department of Corrections, Granting 252 MOTION for Scheduling Conference filed by Chad Sombke, Debi Titus, Doctor Flerchinger, Prison Health Services, Kenneth Khatain, Doctor Kruzich, Denying 239 MOTION for Reconsideration re 230 Order, Denying 237 MOTION for Reconsideration re 230 Order filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
277 STIPULATION TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PHS AND IDOC DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Randall Gammett. (Dos Santos, Mathew)
278 Expert Witness Disclosure filed by Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
279 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Idaho Department of Corrections. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 282241. (Notice sent by e−mail to Court Reporter) (Collaer, Phillip) (07−35829).
280 Expert Witness Disclosure filed by Defendants Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Prison Health Services, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. (Nickels, Bryan)
281 Sealed Document Re: 280 Expert Witness Disclosure Exhibits A−C. (Nickels, Bryan)

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 29 of 31

09/28/2007 09/28/2007 10/01/2007 10/02/2007 10/04/2007
10/04/2007 10/05/2007 10/08/2007 10/09/2007 10/09/2007
10/09/2007 10/09/2007 10/09/2007 10/09/2007 10/09/2007
10/09/2007 10/10/2007 10/11/2007

282 Sealed Document Re: 280 Expert Witness Disclosure Exhibits D−F. (Nickels, Bryan)
283 Expert Witness Disclosure filed by Plaintiff Randall Gammett. (Dos Santos, Mathew)
284 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 279 Notice of Appeal (ja, )
285 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Allow Plaintiff to Amend Complaint by Randall Gammett. (Schurz, James)
286 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 276 Memorandum Decision, Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,, by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 284021. (Notice sent by e−mail to Court Reporter) (Nickels, Bryan) (07−35834).
287 APPEAL DOCKETING STATEMENT re 286 Notice of Appeal, : by Defendants Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services (Nickels, Bryan)
288 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 286 Notice of Appeal, (ja, )
289 STIPULATION of Dismissal to Dismiss Defendants Thomas Kruzich, M.D., Fraun Flerchinger, M.D., Debi Titus, and Prison Health Services, Inc. by Randall Gammett. (Schurz, James)
290 PROPOSED LITIGATION PLAN by Randall Gammett. (Dos Santos, Mathew) .
291 NOTICE by Doctor Kruzich, Doctor Flerchinger, Debi Titus, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Prison Health Services re 280 Expert Witness Disclosure OF WITHDRAWAL OF PHS DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DISCLOSURES (Julian, Andrea)
292 LITIGATION PLAN by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. (Nickels, Bryan)
293 JOINDER by Defendant Idaho Department of Corrections joining 292 Scheduling Conf Form/Litigation Plan. (Collaer, Phillip)
294 Sealed Document Re: 258 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Schurz, James)
295 Sealed Document Re: 294 Sealed Document Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Facts. (Schurz, James)
296 Sealed Document Re: 294 Sealed Document Affidavit of Mathew W. dos Santos in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit 18# 19 Exhibit 19)(Dos Santos, Mathew)
297 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Randall Gammett. Responses due by 11/2/2007 (Dos Santos, Mathew)
299 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mikel H. Williams : Scheduling Conference held on 10/10/2007. (dks, ) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
298 ORDER granting 297 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Randall Gammett, granting 289 Stipulation of Dismissal as to dfts Thomas Kruzich, M.D., Fraun Flerchinger, M.D., Debi Titus and Prison Health Services, Inc. filed by Randall Gammett. The official capacity claims are dismissed without prejudice. The individual capacity claims are dismissed with prejudice to the extent set forth in the stipulation; granting 285 Stipulation to file a second amended complaint filed by Randall Gammett. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 30 of 31

10/12/2007 10/12/2007 10/12/2007 10/15/2007 10/18/2007
10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 11/01/2007 11/08/2007 11/16/2007

to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks, )
300 USCA Case Number 07−35834 for 286 Notice of Appeal, filed by Chad Sombke, Correctional Medical Services, Kenneth Khatain, Sharlene Green, Doctor Kruzich. (dks, ) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
301 USCA Scheduling Order as to 286 Notice of Appeal, filed by Chad Sombke, Correctional Medical Services, Kenneth Khatain, Sharlene Green, Doctor Kruzich. (Notice sent by e−mail to Court Reporter) (dks, ) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
302 USCA Case Number 07−35829 for 279 Notice of Appeal filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (dks, ) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
303 USCA Scheduling Order (07−36829) as to 279 Notice of Appeal filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Notice sent by e−mail to Court Reporter) (ja, ) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
304 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Complaint against Idaho Department of Corrections, Thomas Beauclair, David Haas, Kevin Kemph, Edward Cheeney, Greg Fisher, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Robin Sandy, Vaughn Killeen, John Hardison, Mary Perrien, Idaho State Board of Corrections, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services, Carolyn Meline, Ralph Townsend, Dwight Board, Jim Tibbs, Jay Nielsen, filed by Randall Gammett.(Schurz, James)
305 Sealed Document Re: 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment Reply Brief. (Collaer, Phillip)
306 Sealed Document Re: 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment Supp Aff of Phillip J. Collaer. (Collaer, Phillip) Modified on 10/22/2007 to link to dkt #305 (ja, ).
307 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Idaho Department of Corrections. Responses due by 11/13/2007 (Collaer, Phillip)
308 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Idaho State Board of Corrections. Responses due by 11/19/2007 (Collaer, Phillip)
309 MEMORANDUM in Support re 308 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Idaho Department of Corrections. (Collaer, Phillip)
310 MOTION to Stay by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. Responses due by 11/19/2007 (Nickels, Bryan)
311 MEMORANDUM in Support re 310 MOTION to Stay filed by Doctor Kruzich, Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. (Nickels, Bryan)
312 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction re Second Amended Complaint by Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. Responses due by 11/19/2007 (Nickels, Bryan)
313 MEMORANDUM in Support re 312 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction re Second Amended Complaint filed by Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. (Nickels, Bryan)
314 AFFIDAVIT of Jan Epp re 312 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction re Second Amended Complaint filed by Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. (Nickels, Bryan)
315 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services.(Nickels, Bryan)
316 RESPONSE to Motion re 312 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction re Second Amended Complaint filed by Randall Gammett. Replies due by 11/29/2007. (Schurz, James)
317 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Stay Pending Appeal by Randall Gammett. (Jorjani, Parisa)

Case 1:05-cv-257 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 31 of 31

11/19/2007
11/21/2007 11/29/2007 11/30/2007
12/06/2007 12/27/2007 01/25/2008 04/23/2008 06/05/2008 01/15/2009 01/27/2009 08/03/2009 08/04/2009
08/06/2009 08/11/2009 08/11/2009 08/26/2009

CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry document number 317 Stipulation filed by Randall Gammett in regards to the proposed order, was filed incorrectly in this case. Pursuant to the ECF Procedures, section 12B, all proposed orders are to be submitted by email to the appropriate Judges proposed order email box (MHW_Orders@id.uscourts.gov). The filing party shall re−submit their proposed order. (ja)
318 REPLY to Response to Motion re 312 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction re Second Amended Complaint filed by Kenneth Khatain, Chad Sombke, Sharlene Green, Correctional Medical Services. (Nickels, Bryan)
RECEIPT: CV Comp Fee Received $7.00, receipt #6755. Balance due $133.00. (bc, ) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
319 ORDER Finding as Moot Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment and for Dismissal 255 , 256 , 312 ; Granting the Parties' Motions for Leave to file Excess Pages 275 , 297 , 307 ; Granting Defendants' Motions to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal 308 , 310 . This case shall be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This case is administratively terminated during appeal. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
320 ORDER of USCA as to 202 Notice of Appeal filed by Doe, Jane. The motion of counsel Sheryl Musgrove to withraw is granted. This case shall be calendared with appeal nos. 07−35829 and 07−35934. (ja, )
RECEIPT: CV Comp Fee Received $7.00, receipt #6938. Balance due $126.00. (bc) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
RECEIPT: CV Comp Fee Received $7.00, receipt #7122. Balance due $119.00. (bc) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
321 NOTICE by Randall Gammett of Withdrawal of Attorney Gregory C. Tollefson (Dixon, Bradley)
NOTICE TO COURT that counsel James S. Thomson, II wishes to no longer be noticed electronically on this case as of the date of this notice. (Thomson, James)
322 ORDER of USCA as to 202 Notice of Appeal filed by Doe, Jane (jm)
RECEIPT: CV Comp Fee Received $20.00, receipt #9438.Balance due $99.00. (jld) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
323 STIPULATION of Dismissal Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice and [Proposed] Order by Randall Gammett. (Schurz, James)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry document number 323 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Randall Gammett in regards to the proposed order, was filed incorrectly in this case. Pursuant to the ECF Procedures, section 12B, all proposed orders are to be submitted by email to the appropriate Judges proposed order email box only. The filing party shall re−submit their proposed order.(jm)
324 ORDER of USCA as to 286 Notice of Appeal, 279 Notice of Appeal. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, these appeals are voluntarily dismissed. (jm) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
325 ORDER Granting 323 Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Randall Gammett. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (jm)
326 JUDGMENT Petitioner's case is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
RECEIPT: Civil Filing Fee Fee Received $10.00, receipt #IDX361.Balance due $85.00. (jld) (Entered: 08/27/2009)