Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
SCOTT HILL a/k/a SAMANTHA HILL
Plaintiff, v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, a United States agency, PAUL A. LAIRD, Regional Director, North Central Region, Bureau ofPrisons, sued in his individual capacity, CHARLES A. DANIELS, Warden of the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DR. MARK CARTER, Staff Psychologist at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DR. DANIEL SEVERN, Staff Psychiatrist at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, WILLIAM HUTCIDNGS, captain at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, FIRST NAME UNKNOWN ANTHONY, lieutenant at the United States PenitentiaryFlorence, sued in his individual capacity, DIANE BORGES, counselor at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in her individual capacity, RICHARD DERR, unit manager at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, B. JANUSZ, case manager at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his/her individual capacity, G. LYDE, unit manager at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his/her individual capacity, T. JAVERNICK, CMC at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his/her individual capacity, S. BROWN, special investigative agent at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his/her individual capacity, K. JOHNSON, associate warden at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his/her individual capacity,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 36
PLAINTIFF Scott Hill a/k/a Samantha Hill ("Ms. Hill"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Complaint and Jury Demand alleging violations of her rights protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
NATURE OF THE CASE This is an action seeking nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages and an injunction requiring the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to provide Ms. Hill with consistent and permanent safe housing and adequate medical and mental healthcare. Ms. Hill's claims asserted herein arise from Defendants' egregious violations of Ms. Hill's rights protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ms. Hill is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Ms. Hill is anatomically male, but identifies as female, and has done so since a very young age. She prefers to dress and groom as a female and requests that others treat her as a female. Because Ms. Hill is anatomically male, the BOP houses Ms. Hill in all-male prisons. In fact, Ms. Hill has been housed in some of the BOP's most notoriously dangerous high-security institutions that are unsafe for a transgendered prisoner like Ms. Hill. Consequently, Ms. Hill is at a heightened risk of predation by other inmates, a fact of which Defendants are and were, at the time of the events giving rise to this action, well aware. Despite Defendants' awareness of the heightened risk posed to Ms. Hill's safety, they have failed to protect her from actual and ongoing substantial risks of, serious harm. Ms. Hill seeks nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages from Defendants BOP Laird, Daniels, Carter, Severn, Hutchings, Anthony, Borges, Derr, Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, and Johnson (the "Individual Capacity Defendants") for their roles in failing to protect Ms. Hill from a violent sexual assault perpetrated against her at the United States Penitentiary in
2

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 36
Florence, Colorado ("USP-Florence") on December 17, 2011. Ms. Hill seeks injunctive and prospective relief from Defendant BOP for its continued failure to provide Ms. Hill with consistent and permanent safe housing and for its failure to properly diagnose and treat Ms. Hill's Gender Dysphoria.
USP-Florence is one of the BOP's most violent and dangerous high-security institutions. Ms. Hill was transferred there by Defendants Laird, and Daniels, in December 2010. Defendants Laird, and Daniels made the decision to transfer Ms. Hill to USP-Florence knowing it was unsafe for her-these Defendants were aware that Ms. Hill had been sexually assaulted at least eight times prior at similarly violent and dangerous institutions. Upon arrival to USP-Florence, Defendants Daniels, Carter, Severn, Hutchings, Anthony, Borges, and Derr (the "USP-Florence Defendants") willfully, wantonly, callously, and recklessly forced Ms. Hill to live with violent and dangerous cellmates who posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill. Ignoring Ms. Hill's repeated pleas for a safe housing assignment, the USP-Florence Defendants willfully disregarded, and in some cases actively threatened, Ms. Hill's safety, which misconduct resulted in Ms. Hill being violently sexually assaulted by her cellmate on December 17, 2011. As a consequence of the sexual assault, Ms. Hill suffered physical injuries and severe emotional distress. Leading up to and following the December 17 rape, Defendants Carter and Severn, staff psychologists at USP-Florence, failed to adequately respond to Ms. Hill's pleas for mental health treatment related to her diagnoses of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") and Rape Trauma Syndrome ("RTS").
As a result of the trauma and emotional distress Ms. Hill has suffered because of the December 17 rape and prior rapes she has endured in BOP custody, Ms. Hill continues to have serious mental health needs. Despite Ms. Hill's repeated pleas for adequate and appropriate
3

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 36
treatment for her trauma-related symptoms, BOP professionals have failed to provide treatment as mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act and relevant community standards of care.
In addition to trauma-related treatment, Ms. Hill has repeatedly requested that the BOP provide medical and mental health treatment for her Gender Dysphoria. As of yet, the BOP has failed to evaluate or treat Ms. Hill, in violation of its own policy, Prison Rape Elimination Act standards, and the community standard of care. Consequently, Ms. Hill continues to suffer physically and emotionally.
Defendants' acts and omission described herein constitute gross violations of Ms. Hill's rights protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and have caused and continue to cause Ms. Hill severe physical and emotional suffering. Accordingly, Ms. Hill respectfully requests that the Court grant her the relief requested herein and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4), 1346, 2201, and 2202, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 2. This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants, as set forth in this Complaint. 3. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as all Defendants reside here and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred here.
4

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 36
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Samantha Hill is a federal prisoner in the custody of the BOP. Ms. Hill is transgender; she is anatomically male, but identifies as female. Ms. Hill is ofNative American descent, and in that tradition identifies as a "Two Spirit." The BOP identifies Ms. Hill as Scott Hill, Inmate Register Number 22297-038. Ms. Hill is presently housed at the USP in Terre Haute, Indiana ("USP-Terre Haute"). 5. Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons is a federal agency charged with holding in its custody persons who have been convicted of violating the laws of the United States and sentenced to a period of incarceration. The BOP is also charged with establishing policies and regulations of the federal prison system and ensuring the safety of prisoners in its custody. The BOP has continuously failed to protect Ms. Hill from a substantial risk of serious harm and to provide Ms. Hill with adequate medical and mental healthcare. The BOP is sued in its official capacity. 6. Defendant Paul M. Laird ("Defendant Laird") is the Regional Director of the North Central Region of the BOP. In that capacity, Defendant Laird is responsible for overseeing operations of all BOP facilities within the North Central Region, including all facilities in the Florence, Colorado complex. Defendant Laird placed Ms. Hill at a substantial risk of serious harm by transferring her to USP-Florence and failed to respond to Ms. Hill's pleas for a safe housing assignment while she was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Laird is sued in his individual capacity. 7. Defendant Charles E. Daniels was the warden of USP-Florence at all times relevant to this action. In that capacity, Defendant Daniels was charged with, among other things, ensuring the safety and adequate mental health treatment of USP-Florence prisoners. Defendant
5

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 36
Daniels disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill and Ms. Hill's serious mental health needs while Ms. Hill was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Daniels is sued in his individual capacity.
8. Defendant Dr. Mark Carter, Psy.D. is a staff psychologist at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Carter is responsible for providing mental health treatment to USP-Florence inmates. Defendant Carter disregarded Ms. Hill's serious mental health needs during the entirety of her incarceration at USP-Florence. Defendant Carter is sued in his individual capacity.
9. Defendant Dr. Daniel Severn ("Defendant Severn") is a staff psychiatrist at USPFlorence. In that capacity, Defendant Severn is responsible for providing mental health care to inmates housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Severn disregarded Ms. Hill's serious mental health needs during the entirety of her incarceration at USP-Florence. Defendant Severn is sued in his individual capacity.
10. Defendant William Hutchings ("Defendant Hutchings") was Deputy Captain at the Florence, Colorado complex during the time period relevant to this action. Defendant Hutchings actively created a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill by forcing her to recount the details of brutal rapes that she suffered at the United States Penitentiary in Victorville, California ("USP-Victorville") in the presence of another inmate at USP-Florence. Defendant Hutchings is sued in his individual capacity.
11. Defendant Lieutenant Anthony (first name unknown) is a correctional officer lieutenant in the USP-Florence SHU. In that capacity, Defendant Anthony's responsibilities include, but are not limited to, SHU cell assignment decisions, monitoring inmate custody issues, and ensuring the safety and well-being of inmates housed in the SHU. Defendant Anthony
6

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 36
created and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill while she was housed in the USP-Florence SHU. Defendant Anthony is sued in his individual capacity.
12. Defendant Diane Borges is a correctional counselor at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Borges is responsible for maintaining regular contact with inmates on her case1oad and assisting them in various aspects of their daily lives. Defendant Borges was responsible for ensuring Ms. Hill's safety while she was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Borges was aware of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill. Defendant Borges is sued in her individual capacity.
13. Defendant Richard Derr IS the Unit Manager of the USP-Florence Special Housing Unit ("SHU"), where Ms. Hill was housed during the entirety of her incarceration at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Derris responsible for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of prisoners housed in the USP-Florence SHU and for making custody decisions, including cell assignments and transfer decisions, pertaining to USP-Florence SHU inmates. Defendant Derr created and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill while she was housed in the USP-Florence SHU. Defendant Derris sued in his individual capacity.
14. Defendant B. Janusz is a case manager at USP-Florence. Defendant Janusz participated in the decision to remove Ms. Hill's protective custody status at USP-Florence, thereby creating and exacerbating the risk to her safety while she was housed there. Defendant Janusz is sued in his or her individual capacity.
15. Defendant G. Lyde was the Unit Manager of the USP-Florence SHU on January 25, 2011, when he or she participated in the decision to remove Ms. Hill's protective custody status, thereby creating and exacerbating the risk to her safety while she was housed in the USPFlorence SHU. Defendant Lyde is sued in his or her individual capacity.
7

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 36

16. Defendant T. Javemick is a staff member at USP-Florence. Defendant Javemick

participated in the decision to remove Ms. Hill's protective custody status at USP-Florence,

thereby creating and exacerbating the risk to her safety while she was housed there. Defendant

Javemick is sued in his or her individual capacity.

17. Defendant K. Johnson is the Associate Warden at USP-Florence. Defendant

Johnson participated in the decision to remove Ms. Hill's protective custody status, thereby

creating and exacerbating the risk to Ms. Hill's safety while she was housed there. Defendant

Johnson is sued in his or her individual capacity.

TIMELINE OF TRAUMATIC EVENTS

DATE March 13-18, 2001 2002 March 26, 2003 2009
April 4, 2009

LOCATION
United States Penitentiary, Lewis berg
United States Penitentiary, Allenwood United States Penitentiary, Allenwood
United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute
United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute

NATURE OF INCIDENT
• Ms. Hill is raped while in protective custody by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder following the incident
• Ms. Hill is physically assaulted by another inmate while in protective custody
• Ms. Hill is sexually
assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is physically assaulted by two gang members
• As a result of the assault, Ms. Hill receives 17 staples to her head and two stitches to her face
• Ms. Hill is assaulted by two other inmates with a five pound rock and a knife
• As a result of the assault, Ms. Hill receives 15 staples
• Ms. Hill is again diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

8

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 36

2010 June 10,2010
October 18, 2010 to October 28,2010
December 17, 2011 May 21,2012

United States Penitentiary, Coleman II United States Penitentiary, Coleman II
United States Penitentiary, Victorville
United States Penitentiary, Florence United States Penitentiary, Tucson

• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is repeatedly and violently sexually assaulted over the course of a ten-day period by her cellmate, a Latin Kings gang member
• Ms. Hill is again diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic without Delayed Onset
• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is physically assaulted by her cellmate

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. Ms. Hill's high riskfor predation from other inmates 18. Because of her physical appearance, sexual orientation, history of sexual assault, and cooperation with law enforcement in reporting her history of sexual assault, Ms. Hill is at a very high risk of attack by other prisoners within the BOP. 19. Prisons, including the BOP prisons where Ms. Hill has been housed, are highly predatory environments. There is a strict hierarchy within any prison system, and prisoners at the bottom of the hierarchy are perceived as weak and vulnerable, and as a result are relentlessly preyed upon by others. 20. Prisoners who appear feminine or physically weak, who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender ("LGBT"), who have a known history of being preyed upon, and who have cooperated with law enforcement or "snitched" are considered to be at the bottom of the hierarchy and are therefore at a heightened risk of attack by other prisoners.

9

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 36
21. Ms. Hill is transgender, 1 or a Two Spirit in the Native American tradition. Although Ms. Hill is physically a male, she identifies as a female. She strives to achieve a feminine appearance and to be recognized as a female by others. She is also has a naturally slight build, standing approximately five feet, five inches tall. She wears her hair long, wears make-up, and dresses as a female whenever possible. She requests that others refer to her using feminine pronouns. Ms. Hill has identified as female practically her entire life.
22. Ms. Hill has a long history of being sexually assaulted in the prison system. At a mtmmum, she was sexually assaulted at least eight times at five different United States Penitentiaries ("USP"). She has endured additional physical assaults at many of the facilities where she has been housed, and whenever she is housed at a USP she receives frequent threats of sexual and physical assault.
23. Because Ms. Hill routinely reports these physical and sexual assaults to BOP officials, she has been identified by other prisoners as a snitch-someone who tells on other pnsoners.
24. Even though Ms. Hill identifies and presents as female, she has always been housed in all-male prisons by the BOP because of her anatomy. The BOP has classified Ms. Hill to its highest custody level and routinely houses her in its highest security facilities, USPs. In fact, Ms. Hill has spent the vast majority of her incarceration in some of the BOP's most violent USPs, including USP-Florence.
25. Because USPs are the most violent and dangerous of all federal prisons, the risk to a prisoner like Ms. Hill is significantly heightened when housed in a USP as opposed to a
1 According to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation ("GLAAD"), '"transgender' is an umbrella term often used to refer to people whose gender identify differs from their assigned sex at birth."
10

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 36
lower security prison, such as a Federal Correctional Institution "FCI," a medium security BOP facility.
26. Ms. Hill has, on occasion, been housed in FCis. She has never been assaulted at an FCI.
27. The USPs at which Ms. Hill has been physically or sexually assaulted are some of the BOPs most notoriously dangerous institutions.
28. In the past, the BOP's staff have acknowledged that Ms. Hill's placement at the USP security level increases the risk of attack by other inmates posed to her safety. For example, on July 18, 2002, USP-Allenwood Chief Psychologist John R. Mitchell, Psy.D. ("Dr. Mitchell") advised other BOP officials that "[i]t must be emphasized how inappropriate inmate Hill is to remain at a penitentiary environment. [She] was unable to make it here for even three days without encountering pressure for sex from predatory inmates and requiring protective custody." Protective Custody Evaluation/Suicide Assessment dated July 18, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (emphasis added).
29. In 2003, Dr. Mitchell also recognized the safety risk to Ms. Hill, noting that "[Ms. Hill] has evidenced poor adjustment to BOP facilities throughout [her] incarceration, primarily due to [her] small physical stature, effeminate appearance, and homosexual background." Transfer Recommendation dated July 7, 2003, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
30. When treating Ms. Hill, Dr. Mitchell repeatedly alerted other BOP staff to Ms. Hill's high risk for predation from other inmates through direct communications and notes in Ms. Hill's psychology records.
31. As recently as June 2013, a BOP staff person acknowledged the causal relationship between Ms. Hill's characteristics, identity, and history of assault to her repeated
11

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 36
experience of sexual assault in the BOP. In responding to a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request for Ms. Hill's complete central, medical, and mental health files made by the Colorado Prison Law Project ("CPLP") to the BOP, a BOP employee stated, "I wanted to give you a head's up that there is a lot information in those documents regarding h[er] sexual preference... definitely this file's very sensitive, there's a lot of sensitive issues, so not sure if these paperworks are getting back to [her] or not, but... if so please use caution because [s]he, you know, [s]he's had... several cases of being assaulted... in prison due to things like that."
32. The BOP also has, in the past, repeatedly acknowledged the risk posed to Ms. Hill's safety by placing her on protective custody ("PC") status.
33. PC is a classification status intended to provide additional protection to prisoners who are at a heightened risk of assault at the hands of other prisoners. While the protections afforded by PC status may vary, they can include assignment to a single cell (without a cellmate), directives to keep certain prisoners away from the prisoner on PC status, and directives that the prisoner be allowed to recreate, shower, and conduct other activities of daily life alone.
34. Even when on PC status, prisoners are not necessarily physically separated from prisoners who are not on PC status. On information and belief, there is no BOP facility that houses only prisoners on PC status.
35. In Ms. Hill's case, placement on PC status has never afforded adequate protections from assault by other prisoners.
B. The Risk to Ms. Hill's Safety While Housed at USP-Florence and Defendants' Deliberate Indifference to This Risk
36. From approximately December 2010 to January 2012, Ms. Hill was housed at USP-Florence.
12

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 36
37. The risk of predation by other inmates posed to Ms. Hill at USP-Florence was extraordinary and obvious. The Individual Capacity Defendants were aware that Ms. Hill was at a high risk of physical and/or sexual assault from other inmates in the USP-Florence SHU but failed to respond reasonably, which ultimately led to her rape on December 17, 2011. The USPFlorence Defendants' knowledge of and failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill's safety was willful, wanton, callous, and reckless.
38. The Individual Capacity Defendants had ample knowledge of Ms. Hill's high risk ofpredation by other inmates and of specific threats to Ms. Hill's safety at USP-Florence.
39. To begin with, the Individual Capacity Defendants knew that immediately prior to her transfer to USP-Florence, Ms. Hill endured approximately ten days of sexual assault at the hands of her cellmate, a Latin Kings gang member, at the USP in Victorville, California ("USPVictorville") and that Ms. Hill was at a heighted risk for future sexual assaults as a result.
40. Ms. Hill reported the multiple rapes she had suffered to BOP officials and a Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") investigation was initiated. Ms. Hill was also placed on PC status as a result of the rapes.
41. After the rapes, Ms. Hill and her USP-Victorville assailant, Kenneth Lucez, were both transferred from the Victorville Correctional Cpmplex ("VCC") to other BOP facilities.
42. When BOP prisoners are transferred, they fly from their originating facility to the federal transfer center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ("FTC-Oklahoma"), and from FTCOklahoma on to their destination facility.
43. Ms. Hill and her USP-Victorville assailant were destined for different facilities after they left VCC, but were transferred from the VCC to FTC-Oklahoma on the same plane.
13

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 36
44. Also on the plane from VCC to FTC-Oklahoma were other Latin Kings gang members who were associated with the USP-Victorville assailant. Some of these gang members were ultimately transferred to USP-Florence with Ms. Hill.
45. During the transfer process, the USP-Victorville assailant identified Ms. Hill as a snitch to his associates because Ms. Hill had reported to BOP officials that he had raped her.
46. The Individual Capacity Defendants knew that Ms. Hill had been identified as a snitch.
47. Upon arrival at USP-Florence, Ms. Hill, still on PC status, was placed in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU"), which is a unit that houses prisoners two to a cell that is locked down approximately 23 hours per day. The SHU houses prisoners serving disciplinary sanctions, prisoners who are in need of protection, and others who the BOP has designated to be removed from general population.
48. On information and belief, at the time that Ms. Hill was housed there, the USPFlorence SHU was overcrowded, meaning that it housed more prisoners than it was designed to house.
49. Some ofthe USP-Victorville assailant's associates who had learned of Ms. Hill's snitch status during the transfer process were also housed in the SHU.
50. Initially upon her arrival to USP-Florence, Ms. Hill was placed in a single cell (without a cellmate) and afforded other protections that prevented her from being assaulted by other prisoners.
51. The Individual Capacity Defendants knew that Ms. Hill was designated for singlecell housing because of the high risk of predation by other inmates posed to her.
14

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 36
52. Nonetheless, on January 25, 2011, Defendants Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, and Johnson stripped Ms. Hill of her PC status, finding that there was no verifiable risk to Ms. Hill's safety existent at USP-Florence. The finding that Ms. Hill's safety was not at risk at USP-Florence was contrary to all available evidence.
53. Subsequently, at some point in early 2011, Defendants Borges, Anthony, Derr, and an unknown lieutenant forced Ms. Hill to move in with a cellmate. Around the same time, Defendants Derr and Borges removed her PC status, finding that there existed no "verifiable" risk to her safety at USP-Florence.
54. Without the minimal protections afforded to her by PC status and as a direct result of Defendants Borges, Derr, and Anthony's conduct, the risk to Ms. Hill's safety increased substantially.
55. After being forced to take a cellmate, Defendant Hutchings removed Ms. Hill and her cellmate at the time from the SHU and took them to a picnic table in the yard at USPFlorence. There, Defendant Hutchings forced Ms. Hill to recount the details of the USPVictorville rapes while handcuffed to her cellmate.
56. Thereafter, and as a direct consequence of Defendant Hutching's conduct, USPFlorence SHU prisoners (in addition to Kenneth Lucez's associates) learned ofMs. Hill's history of sexual assault. Some prisoners began soliciting Ms. Hill for sex through "kites," which are written notes prisoners pass to each other. Some of these kites were sexually threatening. See, e.g., Kite, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
57. Knowing that the risk to her safety was increased by other prisoners' knowledge that she had previously been sexually assaulted, Ms. Hill requested of the USP-Florence
15

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 36
Defendants that she be placed back on PC status, afforded a single cell, and separated from prisoners who posed a risk to her safety.
58. Ms. Hill's repeated requests for a safe housing assignment were denied and/or ignored by the USP-Florence Defendants.
59. Ms. Hill's repeated requests for a safe housing assignment further bolstered her reputation as a snitch amongst the USP-Florence SHU prisoners.
60. At one point, Defendant Anthony called Ms. Hill a "little bitch" at a volume audible to other prisoners and disclosed that she had cried in his office on the SHU tier, causing her to appear weak to other SHU prisoners, and thereby exacerbating the risk posed to Ms. Hill's safety.
61. Throughout the course of her time at USP-Florence, Ms. Hill repeatedly requested mental health treatment for trauma symptoms related to the USP-Victorville rapes and other rapes she had endured in BOP custody. In the course of those requests, Ms. Hill reported to Drs. Carter and Severn that there were existing threats to her safety at USP-Florence.
62. In response to Ms. Hill's pleas for help, Defendants Carter and Severn did not provide mental health treatment, but instead repeatedly attempted to force Ms. Hill to leave the SHU for general population by refusing to provide psychological treatment for Ms. Hill's PTSD and RTS so long as Ms. Hill insisted on living in the SHU for her own safety.
63. Defendants Carter and Severn knew that Ms. Hill was a person in need of adequate protection due to her effeminate appearance, history of sexual assaults, LGBT identity, and reputation as a snitch.
64. Additionally, all of the Individual Capacity Defendants knew that Ms. Hill was designated as a Central Inmate Monitoring ("CIM") case, meaning that special procedures were
16

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 36
to be followed before she could be housed with another prisoner or transferred to a new facility. Ms. Hill's central file contains a large-print single-page document that reads: "NOT TO BE TRANSFERRED OR PARTICIPATE IN COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES WITHOUT CMC CLEARANCE. SEE PROGRAM STATEMENT TITLED 'CENTRAL INMATE MONITORING SYSTEM'." On information and belief, this document is one of the first pages of Ms. Hill's central file. Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
65. Finally, Ms. Hill herself alerted each of the Individual Capacity Defendants to the risk to her safety by filing requests for administrative remedies and sending letters identifying the risk to her safety.
66. At one point, the USP-Florence Defendants temporarily transferred Ms. Hill to FCI-Florence, a lower security prison. On information and belief, this transfer was effectuated because the USP-Florence Defendants were aware of the high risk of assault Ms. Hill faced while housed in the USP-Florence SHU. Nonetheless, in fal12011, the USP-Florence Defendants transferred Ms. Hill back to the USP-Florence SHU, knowing of the substantial risk of serious harm posed to her by that placement.
67. Even while knowing of Ms. Hill's vulnerability to sexual and physical assault, the USP-Florence Defendants failed to respond reasonably to this risk to when, among other things:
a. They removed her PC status upon arrival to USP-Florence; b. They forced her, on multiple occasions, to live with a cellmate; c. They failed to choose a suitable, non-predatory cellmate for her; d. They failed to respond to Ms. Hill's requests for a safe housing assignment; e. They failed to timely transfer Ms. Hill to an FCI;
17

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 36
f. After they did transfer Ms. Hill to FCI-Florence, they moved her back to the USP-Florence SHU and forced her to accept a cellmate;
g. They disciplined Ms. Hill for refusing a threatening and predatory cellmate; h. They physically assaulted Ms. Hill for refusing a threatening and predatory
cellmate; 1. They disregarded and failed to take action after learning that numerous USP-
Florence SHU inmates had sent sexually threatening kites to Ms. Hill; J. They failed to reasonably respond to Ms. Hill's numerous requests for
administrative remedies asking for a safe housing assignment; k. They created a hostile and unsafe environment for Ms. Hill in the USP-
Florence SHU; and 1. They attempted to force Ms. Hill to enter the general population at USP-
Florence. 68. The consequences ofthe USP-Florence Defendants' failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill's safety during the period in which she was housed in the USPFlorence SHU were grave. 69. On December 17, 2011, Ms. Hill was violently raped by her cellmate. 70. The night of December 16, 2011, Ms. Hill's cellmate began stuffing rosary beads into the tip of his penis and commented to Ms. Hill to the effect of, "You're gonna wake it up. And if you wake it up, you'll be coughing semen in the morning." 71. Ms. Hill immediately notified a BOP staff member, whose name is unknown, that she was at imminent risk of harm and that she needed to be removed from her cell.
18

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 36
72. A USP-Florence investigative staff member, whose name is unknown, came to Ms. Hill's cell and told her there was no space to move her to a different cell.
73. Hours later, shortly after midnight December 17, 2011, Ms. Hill's cellmate raped her.
74. With the rosary beads still in his penis, the assailant caused significant tearing to
Ms. Hill's anus. See Medical Records from St. Thomas More Hospital, attached hereto as
Exhibit 5. 75. Because Ms. Hill feared further attack if she attempted to alert USP-Florence staff
that she had been raped, Ms. Hill remained silent for the rest of the night. Until the morning, Ms. Hill was forced to sit in underwear wet with her assailant's semen and hold back tears and screams. For hours, Ms. Hill sat with her violent, predatory attacker only feet from her while having to relive the assault over and over again in her mind.
76. The first person to come by Ms. Hill's cell in the morning was a nurse, who came to deliver Ms. Hill's medications at approximately nine o'clock a.m.
77. Ms. Hill passed the nurse a note saying that she'd been raped and needed to be taken out of the cell immediately. In the note, Ms. Hill instructed the nurse to say Ms. Hill needed to be removed for bloodwork so as not to alert Ms. Hill's cellmate that Ms. Hill had told staff he had raped her. In response to the note, the nurse loudly said, "Is this real? Are you for real? This better be real."
78. The nurse finally notified guards, who came to remove Ms. Hill from the cell. 79. The guards took Ms. Hill to be interviewed by Defendant Anthony and others. For the approximate hour she was being interviewed, Ms. Hill was forced to sit in the clothes still soaked with her rapist's semen.
19

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 36
80. Because she was suffering extreme trauma, Ms. Hill's teeth were chattering during the interview. Defendant Anthony asked, "What, are you cold?" Ms. Hill responded, "No, don't you understand how I feel right now?" Defendant Anthony responded, "No, I've never had a dick in my ass."
81. Throughout the course of the interview, Defendant Anthony repeatedly expressed the opinion that men who identify as gay or transgendered cannot be raped because, under certain circumstances, they have consented to sex with someone of the same sex.
82. Following the interview, Ms. Hill was placed in the SHU "shock cell," a small, glass encased observation cell. While she was in the shock cell, multiple guards passed by and snickered and laughed at Ms. Hill, who was crying and visibly upset.
83. Ms. Hill was forced to continue to sit in clothes soaked in her rapist's semen while she was in the shock cell.
84. After spending approximately one hour in the shock cell, guards took Ms. Hill to the intake area of the prison and removed her clothing and put it in a paper bag. They provided Ms. Hill with fresh clothing in preparation for transportation to the hospital.
85. Before leading Ms. Hill to the transport van, guards placed a blindfold over Ms. Hill's eyes. Ms. Hill has never been blindfolded during transport before, including during her transport to USP-Florence.
86. Ms. Hill was transported to and received medical treatment at St. Thomas More Hospital in Cafion City, Colorado. See Exh. 6.
87. Ms. Hill was taken back to the USP-Florence SHU and remained there for approximately two weeks, although she was then single-celled and kept away from all other inmates.
20

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 36
88. On December 30, 2011, Ms. Hill was transferred to FCI-Florence. 89. The Individual Capacity Defendants' knowledge of and failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill's safety were the direct cause of injuries Ms. Hill received as a result of the December 17, 2011 rape. 90. The Individual Capacity Defendants' knowledge of and failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill's safety was willful, wanton, callous, and reckless. 91. As a consequence of the December 17, 2011 rape, Ms. Hill suffered physical injuries and severe emotional distress and pain and suffering. C. The BOP's Ongoing Failure to Respond Reasonably to the Risk Posed to Ms. Hill
and the Resultant Harm Suffered 92. Since the December 17, 2011 rape, the BOP has continued to fail to safely house Ms. Hill. After USP-Florence, Ms. Hill was transferred to the USP in Tucson, Arizona ("USPTucson"), where the PC designation she received after the USP-Florence rape was removed. Consequently, USP-Tucson staff attempted to force Ms. Hill into general population, but Ms. Hill refused such an assignment out of fear for her safety as she continued to face multiple threats of sexual and physical assault, which prison officials were aware of. 93. In or around May of 2012, Ms. Hill was physically assaulted by her cellmate in the USP-Tucson SHU. She was subsequently given PC status and transferred to a USP in Coleman, Florida ("USP-Coleman II"). 94. Ms. Hill had been previously housed at USP Coleman II and had a documented history of being sexually assaulted there. Fearing for her safety at that facility, USP-Coleman II staff would not allow Ms. Hill into the general population, and submitted a transfer request for her.
21

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 36
95. Ms. Hill was then transferred to USP-Allenwood, by way of the USP in Atlanta, Georgia ("USP-Atlanta"). Fortunately, Ms. Hill's transfer to USP-Allenwood allowed her to be reunited with Dr. Mitchell, who had historically, and during Ms. Hill's most recent placement at USP-Allenwood, made attempts to ensure Ms. Hill's safety in the BOP.
96. Dr. Mitchell's efforts, unfortunately, were made in vain, and on or around July 19, 2013, Ms. Hill was transferred to the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute ("USP-Terre Haute"). Ms. Hill had previously been raped at USP-Terre Haute and experienced significant anxiety and emotional distress when she was returned to that facility.
97. Given her history of sexual assault at USP-Terre Haute and the inherent risk posed to her safety by being housed at the USP custody level, her safety remained at constant risk so long as she was housed there.
98. Today, Ms. Hill is housed at the Federal Correctional Institution II in Butner, North Carolina ("FCI-Butner II).
99. Despite the ongoing risk posed to Ms. Hill's safety, the BOP has completely failed to take any reasonable measures to abate the risk. For example, the BOP has failed to mandate that Ms. Hill be housed at no higher than the FCI custody level to preclude her placement in USPs, which are notoriously violent. The BOP has also failed to afford Ms. Hill a centralized PC designation that would require that she receive protection wherever she is housed within the agency. Instead, The BOP has left individual facilities to create their own PC policies, which has resulted in inconsistent application of protective measures to Ms. Hill.
100. Moreover, the BOP has failed to house Ms. Hill in a facility commensurate with her needs as a transgender prisoner. Instead, the BOP has continued to house Ms. Hill in male institutions.
22

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 36
101. Ms. Hill's continuous transfers between dangerous BOP facilities, and the BOP's failure to provide a safe environment for her demonstrates the agency's ongoing deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of harm posed to Ms. Hill.
D. Ms. Hill's serious medical and mental health needs arising from repeated rapes she has endured while in BOP custody
102. As a result of the USP-Victorville rapes and other rapes she has endured while in BOP custody, Ms. Hill has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") and Rape Trauma Syndrome ("RTS").
103. PTSD is a psychological condition commonly experienced by rape survivors. The condition causes persons who have suffered trauma to experience trauma symptoms even when not directly experiencing a trauma. PTSD is a condition that can last indefinitely.
104. Like PTSD, RTS is a psychological condition brought on by the traumatic experience of rape. RTS disrupts cognitive, emotional, physical, and interpersonal functioning. RTS is a condition that can last for years.
105. Symptoms Ms. Hill experiences that are associated with PTSD and RTS include, but are not limited to:
a. Extreme anxiety and panic attacks; b. Fear and extreme nervousness; c. Overwhelming guilt and shame; d. Sleep deprivation; e. Hopelessness and helplessness; f. Difficulty maintaining close relationships; g. Flashbacks and reliving of past rapes and physical assaults; h. Upsetting dreams;
23

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 36
1. Cognitive difficulties; J. Frequent crying; k. Mood swings; 1. Dissociation; m. Fatigue; and n. Tension. 106. The most effective treatment for both PTSD and RTS is talk therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy. Other types of psychotherapy treatment may be appropriate. 107. PTSD and RTS constitute serious medical and mental health needs. E. Defendants Carter and Severn's Failure to Provide Adequate Mental Health Treatment for Ms. Hill's Rape Trauma Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 108. To ease her mental suffering and symptoms associated with her PTSD and RTS, Ms. Hill repeatedly requested mental health treatment in the form of talk therapy and medication from while at USP-Florence. 109. Defendants Carter and Severn were assigned to treat Ms. Hill and therefore received these repeated requests for help. However, Defendant Carter repeatedly failed to reasonably respond to Ms. Hill's requests for mental health treatment. 110. Specifically, Defendants Carter and Severn's actions included, but were not limited to: a. Repeatedly denying Ms. Hill talk therapy on the grounds that she could only
receive such treatment if she "agreed to come out to the compound," even though Ms. Hill's life would have been threatened by entering general population at USP-Florence; and
24

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 36
b. Repeatedly creating signed written records indicating that Ms. Hill had not requested mental health treatment and was not experiencing any significant mental health symptoms that would require treatment greater than that she was being provided even though Ms. Hill had repeatedly indicated she was in need of mental health treatment and had repeatedly requested such treatment.
111. In addition, although Defendants Carter and Severn continued Ms. Hill's prescription for medication intended to aid in treating her PTSD and RTS symptoms, medication alone constituted grossly inadequate treatment.
112. Defendants Carter and Severn's conduct constituted deliberate indifference to Ms. Hill's serious medical and mental health needs.
113. Defendants Carter and Severn's failure to provide mental health treatment to Ms. Hill was willful, wanton, callous, and reckless.
F. Tlte BOP's ongoingfailure to treat Ms. Hill's Rape Trauma Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
114. Since her transfer from USP-Florence, the BOP has continued to fail to adequately treat Ms. Hill's PTSD and RTS.
115. Ms. Hill continues to suffer severe symptoms of PTSD and RTS. Yet, the BOP has failed to afford Ms. Hill meaningful, consistent, and adequate medical and mental health treatment.
116. The Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA"), a federal statute intended to provide greater protection and improve rape trauma-related services available to survivors of prison rape, requires that prisons, including the BOP, provide timely and appropriate medical and mental health care after a prisoner has been raped. The PREA requirements, while not giving rise to a
25

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 36
cause of action on their own, provide guidance as to what constitutes adequate medical and mental health treatment after a prisoner has suffered a rape.
117. An express purpose ofPREA is to bring the BOP into compliance with the Eighth Amendment.
118. Specifically, the Department of Justice regulations that implement PREA require, among other things, the BOP to provide timely and appropriate medical and mental health care to victims of sexual abuse, and provide the victim access to victim advocates from rape crisis centers for emotional support services relate to the sexual abuse. In addition, these regulations seek to restrict the use of SHU or solitary confinement as a means of protecting vulnerable inmates and require the BOP to create a safer environment through training and screening protocols, education of inmates and guards, development of protocols that encourage reporting of abuse, and requiring more prompt and thorough investigation of claims of rape.
119. The BOP has failed to comply with these regulations by not providing consistent, continuous, adequate, or appropriate mental health treatment to Ms. Hill, as well as by housing Ms. Hill in SHU as the only means of the protecting her from further assaults.
120. Although Ms. Hill has had some access to mental health care providers who have provided some talk therapy, that access has been minimal, sporadic at best, and insufficient to appropriately treat her PTSD and RTS. As of the date of this Complaint, Ms. Hill does not have access to any talk therapy or other adequate emotional support services.
121. In addition, Ms. Hill's long-term placement in the SHU, which she has been forced to endure because the BOP has failed to house her at adequately safe facilities, also has exacerbated the symptoms of her PTSD and RTS.
26

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 36
122. The BOP's failure to consistently and appropriately safely house Ms. Hill exacerbates the symptoms ofher PTSD and RTS.
123. These failures constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical and mental health need.
G. Ms. Hill's Serious Medical and Mental Health Needs Arisingfrom Gender Dysphoria
124. · Ms. Hill has gender dysphoria, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ("DSM-V"). Ms. Hill has no documented diagnosis of gender dysphoria as a result of the BOP's failure to provide an evaluation of Ms. Hill's condition.
125. The American Psychiatric Association, in the DSM-V, describes transgender persons as those who suffer from gender dysphoria. The diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria include a long-standing and strong identification with another gender, long-standing disquiet about the sex assigned or a sense of incongruity in the gender-assigned role of that sex, no physical intersex characteristics, and significant distress or impairment in occupational functioning, social functioning, and other areas of life. According to the DSM-V, a transsexual is someone who desires to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by the wish to make his or her body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatment, the transsexual identity has been present for at least two years, and the disorder is not a symptom of another mental disorder or a chromosomal abnormality.
126. Symptoms of gender dysphoria can be extremely painful. They can include extreme emotional discomfort, a desire to hide or be rid of physical signs of the biological sex, and a strong dislike for and desire to change the genitalia of the biological sex.
27

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 36
127. Gender dysphoria constitutes a serious medical need. 128. Appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria includes, but is not limited to:
a. Mental health support; b. Hormone treatment; c. Dress of preferred gender role; d. Grooming supplies of preferred gender role; e. Hygiene supplies of preferred gender role; f. Use of name and pronouns of preferred gender role; g. Opportunities to behave in preferred gender role; h. Language and speech therapy; 1. Hair removal treatments or devices; J. Peer support groups; and k. Sex reassignment therapy or surgery. 129. Additionally, in the prison or jail context, treatment for gender dysphoria includes, but is not limited to: a. Freedom from retaliation and harassment by prison or jail staff and other
inmates; b. Housing with other LGBT inmates, or inmates of the same preferred gender; c. Separate housing, or at a minimum separate bathroom and shower facilities,
from other inmates, if the inmate is housed in a facility of those with the same biological sex; d. Pat and strip searches conducted by a staff member of the gender of the inmate's choice;
28

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 36
e. Confidentiality ofthe inmate's sexual orientation; f. Availability ofLGBT literature and resources; g. Staff training regarding transgender inmates; and h. Protective custody. 130. Gender dysphoria constitutes a serious medical and mental health need. H. The BOP's failure to adequately treat Ms. Hill's Gender Dysphoria 131. Ms. Hill has repeatedly requested treatment for her gender dysphoria from the BOP. 132. Specifically, Ms. Hill has requested: a. To be free from retaliation and harassment by BOP staff and other inmates; b: To be referred to using her female name, Samantha, and feminine pronouns; c. To be provided female clothing, undergarments, hygiene and grooming
products, and any cosmetic products as may be allowed for her custody level; d. Separate bathrooms and shower facilities where males are not present; e. Hormone therapy; f. Housing with females or other LGBT inmates; g. To be free from sexual and physical assault by other inmates; h. Pat and strip searches to be conducted by a staff member of the gender of Ms.
Hill's choice; 1. Confidentiality of Ms. Hill's sexual orientation; J. LGBT literature and resources; k. Medical and mental health care appropriate to Ms. Hill's sexual orientation
and history of rape in custody;
29

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 36
1. Staff training regarding transgender inmates;
m. Evaluation and diagnosis of her gender identity disorder/GD; and
n. Protective custody.
133. The BOP has failed to provide any treatment whatsoever for Ms. Hill's gender
dysphoria.
134. BOP policy provides that inmates who have gender dysphoria will receive
treatment, or will at least be evaluated to determine the appropriateness of treatment.
135. Specifically, BOP policy requires that:
[I]nmates who assert they have [gender dysphoria]2 will receive thorough medical and mental health evaluations from medical professionals with basic competence in the assessment of the DSM [V} sexual disorders and who have participated in BOP's [gender dysphoria] training... The evaluation will include an assessment of the inmate's treatment and life experiences prior to incarceration (including hormone therapy, completed or in-process surgical interventions, real life experience consistent with the inmate's gender identity, private expressions that conform to the preferred gender, and counseling). If a diagnosis of [gender dsyphoria] is reached, a proposed treatment plan will be developed which promotes the physical and mental stability of the patient. The development of the treatment plan is not solely dependent on services provided or the inmate's life experiences prior to incarceration. The treatment plan may include elements or services that were, or were not, provided prior to incarceration, including, but not limited to: those elements of the real life experience consistent with the prison environment, hormone therapy and counseling. Treatment plans will be reviewed regularly and updated as necessary.
Current, accepted standards of care will be used as a reference for developing the treatment plan. All appropriate treatment options prescribed for inmates with [gender dysphoria] in currently accepted standards of care will be taken into consideration during evaluation by the appropriate medical and mental health care staff. Each treatment plan or denial of treatment must be reviewed by the Medical Director or BOP Chief Psychiatrist. Hormone therapy must be requested through the non-formulary review process, and approved by the Medical Director and/or BOP ChiefPsychiatrist.
2 In 2013, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was updated from version IV to version V. A significant change in version Vis the renaming of what was previously termed gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria. As the relevant BOP policy was written before this update, it refers to gender identity disorder.
30

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 36
In summary, inmates in the custody of the Bureau with a possible diagnosis of [gender dysphoria] will receive a current individualized assessment and evaluation. Treatment options will not be precluded solely due to level of services received, or lack of services, prior to incarceration. Memorandum for Chief Executive Officers dated May 31, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 136. The BOP has failed to provide an evaluation or treatment for Ms. Hill's gender dysphoria. 137. Additionally, PREA requires that the BOP, among other things:
a. Develop and maintain a zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse; b. Screen inmates for risk of being sexually abused or sexually abusive, and use
screening information to inform housing, bed, work education, and program assignments; c. Educate and train employees on their responsibilities m preventing, recognizing and responding to sexual abuse; d. Ban cross-gender pat-down searches of female inmates in prisons and jails; e. Enable inmates to shower, perform bodily functions and changes clothing without improper viewing by staff of the opposite gender; f. Require adequate levels of staffing to protect vulnerable inmates. g. Provide adequate medical and mental health care. h. Adequately investigate all reports of sexual and physical abuse and sufficient and safe means for prisoners to report abuse. 138. The BOP has failed to comply with PREA requirements pertaining to gender dysphoria treatment.
31

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 36
139. The BOP's failure to treat Ms. Hill's gender dysphoria constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious medical and mental health need.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Protect- All Defendants) 140. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 141. The Individual Capacity Defendants did not respond reasonably to ~ substantial risk of serious harm posed to Ms. Hill while she was housed at USP-Florence. 142. Defendants Anthony, Hutchings, Carter, Derr, and Borges exacerbated and aggravated the risk that Ms. Hill would be subjected to serious harm while she was housed at USP-Florence. 143. The Individual Capacity Defendants deliberately disregarded the substantial risk that Ms. Hill would be sexually assaulted while housed at USP-Florence. 144. The Individual Capacity Defendants willfully, wantonly, callously, and recklessly disregarded the substantial risk that Ms. Hill would be sexually assaulted while housed at USPFlorence. 145. This deliberate and reckless disregard resulted in Ms. Hill being violently raped while housed at USP-Florence. 146. Defendant BOP continues to deliberately disregard the substantial risk of serious harm posed to Ms. Hill's safety. 147. Defendants' failure to protect Ms. Hill from a substantial risk of serious harm constitutes a violation of her right against cruel and unusual punishment protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
32

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 36
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Deliberate Indifference to Rape Trauma Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -
Defendants Carter, Severn, and BOP) 148. Defendants Carter and Severn failed to provide Ms. Hill adequate mental health care pertaining to her RTS and PTSD while she was housed at USP-Florence. 149. Defendants Carter and Severn acted with deliberate indifference to Ms. Hill's serious medical and mental health needs while she was at USP-Florence. 150. Defendants Carter and Severn willfully, wantonly, callously, and recklessly disregarded Ms. Hill's serious medical and mental health needs while she was housed at USPFlorence. 151. Defendant BOP continues to deliberately disregard Ms. Hill's serious medical and mental health needs pertaining to her RTS and PTSD. 152. Defendants Carter, Severn, and BOP's failure to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment to Ms. Hill constitutes a violation of her right against cruel and unusual punishment protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Deliberate Indifference to Gender Dysphoria- Defendant BOP) 153. Defendant BOP, on an ongoing basis, has failed to provide Ms. Hill adequate medical and mental health care pertaining to her gender dysphoria. 154. Defendant BOP, on an ongoing basis, has acted with deliberate indifference to Ms. Hill's serious medical and mental health needs. 155. Defendant BOP's failure to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment to Ms. Hill constitutes a violation of her right against cruel and unusual punishment protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
33

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 36
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants for: (a) Nominal and compensatory damages to compensate her for her physical injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress suffered as a result of the USP-Florence Defendants' failure to protect her and Defendants Carter and Severn's failure to provide adequate mental health treatment; (b) Punitive damages in a sum as to deter the Individual Capacity Defendants of conduct of this nature in the future; (c) An injunction directing that the BOP implement such measures as are necessary to ensure Ms. Hill is safely housed within the BOP. At a minimum, Ms. Hill shall be afforded:
a. A centralized protective custody designation not subject to removal; b. Housing with other LGBT inmates and separation from male inmates; c. Removal from SHU and cessation of social isolation; d. Access to programming and rehabilitative services commensurate with the
access afforded other inmates of Ms. Hill's custody level; and e. Housing in a facility where staff have been appropriately trained in custody
matters pertaining to LGBT inmates. (d) An injunction prohibiting the BOP from housing Ms. Hill at a male USP. (e) An injunction directing that the BOP provide Ms. Hill with consistent, continuous, appropriate, and adequate medical and mental health treatment for her PTSD, RTS, and gender dysphoria. At a minimum, that treatment shall include:
a. Freedom from retaliation and harassment by BOP staff and other inmates; b. Reference using her female name, Samantha, and feminine pronouns;
34

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 36
c. Female clothing, undergarments, hygiene and grooming products, and any cosmetic products as may be allowed for her custody level;
d. Separate bathrooms and shower facilities where males are not present; e. Hormone therapy; f. Housing with females or other LGBT inmates; g. Freedom from sexual and physical assault by other inmates; h. Pat and strip searches to be conducted by a staff member of the gender of Ms.
Hill's choice; 1. Confidentiality of Ms. Hill's sexual orientation; J. LGBT literature and resources; k. Medical and mental health care appropriate to Ms. Hill's sexual orientation
and history of rape in custody; 1. Staff training regarding transgender inmates; m. Evaluation and diagnosis of her gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria; n. Protective custody; and o. Sex reassignment surgery; (f) A declaration that Defendants' conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, violated and continues to violate Ms. Hill's rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (g) An award of attorneys' fees and costs; (h) Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. DATED this 17th day of December, 2013.
35

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 1 Filed 12/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 36
Respectfully submitted, COLORADO PRISON LAW PROJECT s/ Elisabeth L. Owen Elisabeth L. Owen 1515 Wynkoop Street Suite 360 Denver, CO 80202 T: 720-389-9145 F: 720-763-9609 E: lisi@coloradoprisonlawproject.org BRYAN CAVE LLP sl Stephen D. Gurr Stephen D. Gurr Sarah April Christy Anderson 1700 Lincoln Street Suite 4100 Denver, CO 80203 T: 303-861-7000 F: 303-866-0200 E: sarah.april@bryancave.com
steve. gun@bryancave. com Christy.anderson@bryancave. com
36

 
 Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 55
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03404-MSK-BNB
SCOTT HILL a/k/a SAMANTHA HILL
Plaintiff, v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, a United States agency, MICHAEL K. NALLEY, Regional Director, North Central Region, Bureau of Prisons, sued in his individual capacity, CHARLES A. DANIELS, Warden of the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DR. MARK CARTER, Staff Psychologist at the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DR. DANIEL SEVERN, Staff Psychiatrist at the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity, WILLIAM HUTCHINGS, captain at the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity, LAMONT ANTHONY, lieutenant at the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DIANE BORGES, counselor at the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in her individual capacity, RICHARD DERR, unit manager at the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity, BERNIE JANUSZ, case manager at the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity, GILBERT LYDE, unit manager at the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity, TODD JAVERNICK, CMC at the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity, STEVE BROWN, special investigative agent at the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity, and KEVIN JOHNSON, associate warden of the United States Penitentiary – Florence, sued in his individual capacity.
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

	  

1

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 55

	  

PLAINTIFF Scott Hill a/k/a Samantha Hill (“Ms. Hill”), by and through undersigned

counsel, hereby submits this Amended Complaint and Jury Demand alleging violations of her

rights protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Ms. Hill is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP”). Ms.

Hill is anatomically male, but identifies as female, and has done so since a very young age. She

prefers to dress and groom as a female and requests that others treat her as a female. Because Ms.

Hill is anatomically male, the BOP houses Ms. Hill in all-male prisons. As a result of her

effeminate appearance and presentation, her diminutive stature, her sexual orientation and gender

identification, and knowledge among the prison population she has participated in investigations

into the physical and sexual assaults against her, Ms. Hill is at a heightened risk of predation by

other inmates. Her personal status alone – irrespective of the characteristics of her cellmate –

puts her at heightened risk while incarcerated, as evidenced by her history of repeated sexual

victimization while imprisoned.

Though it is obvious that Ms. Hill is viewed as “prey” in the prison environment, and

though various BOP personnel have acknowledged Ms. Hill’s heightened risk of predation and

included concerns regarding her risk level in her BOP Central File for all BOP personnel to see,

the BOP has housed Ms. Hill in some of the BOP’s most notoriously dangerous high-security

institutions. These institutions are unsafe for a transgendered prisoner like Ms. Hill, and Ms. Hill

has routinely been housed with cellmates who have not been verified as “safe” to cohabitate with

her. Ms. Hill has been assaulted or raped numerous times since she has been in the custody of the

BOP. She lives in constant fear of assault if she leaves protective custody, which she has

requested repeatedly to ensure her safety. Despite her frequent pleas to the BOP for placement in

	  

2

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 55
a single cell or in a facility where she is not facing the risk of assault, and despite her exhaustion of administrative remedies to put all levels of the BOP on notice of her serious concerns regarding her personal safety, the BOP continues to house Ms. Hill in penitentiaries with violent criminals who target her as “prey,” and with cellmates. Despite the BOP’s awareness of the heightened risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety, it has failed to protect her from actual and ongoing substantial risks of serious harm. Ms. Hill seeks injunctive and prospective relief from the BOP for its confirmed failure to provide Ms. Hill with consistent and permanent safe housing.
In particular, the BOP and Defendants housed Ms. Hill at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado (“USP-Florence”), one of the BOP’s most violent and dangerous highsecurity institutions. The BOP transferred Ms. Hill there in December 2010, knowing it was unsafe based on the well-documented history of sexual assault against Ms. Hill at similarly violent and dangerous institutions. Upon her arrival to USP-Florence, Ms. Hill informed USPFlorence staff in her intake screening interview that she had recently been sexually assaulted, was a “CIM case” (i.e., had been designated for Central Inmate Monitoring and thus should have received heightened review upon arrival), and should not be placed in the general population. She expressly informed Defendants Daniels, Carter, Severn, Hutchings, Anthony, Borges, Derr, and Johnson of her prior history of victimization and her ongoing fear of assault and of retaliation for her participation in an investigation regarding a prior assault, for which she had been labeled as a “snitch.” Even though the Defendants knew of the inherent risk in housing Ms. Hill in a dangerous environment, the Defendants housed Ms. Hill in the Special Housing Unit (the “SHU”) with a cellmate, despite her repeated requests to be single-celled and her administrative appeals of the decision to require her to be housed with a cellmate.

	  

3

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 55

During the period from her transfer to USP-Florence until the date of her rape by her cellmate, Ms. Hill repeatedly notified the Defendants of her fears of being targeted based on her sexual orientation, effeminate appearance, and history of assault, and pled for a safe housing assignment. Ms. Hill’s warnings notwithstanding—and despite the severity of the claims of repeated sexual assault and rape in her Central File, USP-Florence officials did nothing to protect her from the cellmate who eventually violently sexually assaulted her on December 17, 2011. As a consequence of the sexual assault, Ms. Hill suffered physical injuries and severe emotional distress. Ms. Hill therefore seeks nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages from the BOP and from “the Individual Capacity Defendants” (Nalley, Daniels, Carter, Severn, Hutchings, Anthony, Borges, Derr, Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, and Johnson) for their personal participation in failing to protect Ms. Hill from the violent sexual assault she suffered on their watch.
Additionally, Ms. Hill also seeks monetary relief from Defendants Carter and Severn, and injunctive relief from the BOP, for their failure to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment to Ms. Hill for her Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Rape Trauma Syndrome, both leading up to and following the December 17, 2011 rape. Defendants Carter and Severn each were repeatedly informed of Ms. Hill’s trauma, fears, anxiety, and stress resulting from her repeated sexual victimization, and of her diagnoses of PTSD and RTS. Defendants Carter’s and Steven’s reports detail Ms. Hill’s fragile mental state, acknowledge her need for treatment, and set forth the nominal and oftentimes delayed treatment actually provided. Despite acknowledging her PTSD and RTS, Defendants Carter and Severn each refused Ms. Hill adequate counseling and treatment and have failed to provide treatment as mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act and relevant community standards of care. The BOP has continued to fail to provide

	  

4

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 55

adequate PTSD and RTS treatment in violation of Ms. Hill’s rights protected by the Eighth Amendment.
Ms. Hill finally seeks injunctive relief against the BOP that would require it to properly treat Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria, for which she has repeatedly requested medical and mental health treatment. Until recently, the BOP had failed even to evaluate Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria, let alone provide any treatment, despite recognizing and documenting her gender identity issues as early as 2005. In 2012, the BOP finally performed an evaluation, and recently informed Ms. Hill that she would be transferred to a medical facility for treatment. As of now, Ms. Hill has not yet been transferred to a medical facility as promised. Moreover, the nature, duration, and adequacy of the treatment to be provided is unknown, and any voluntary provision of treatment and safe housing could be subject to cessation at any time. Injunctive relief is required to ensure Ms. Hill receives adequate treatment for her gender dysphoria in light of the BOP’s practice of regularly and unpredictably moving inmates between correctional institutions and past failure to provide necessary treatment.
Defendants’ acts and omission described herein constitute gross violations of Ms. Hill’s rights protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and have caused and continue to cause Ms. Hill severe physical and emotional suffering. Accordingly, Ms. Hill respectfully requests that the Court grant her the relief requested herein and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4), 1346, 2201, and 2202, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

	  

5

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 55

2. This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants, as set forth in this Amended Complaint.
3. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as all Defendants reside here and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred here.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Samantha Hill is a federal prisoner in the custody of the BOP. Ms. Hill is transgender; she is anatomically male, but identifies as female. Ms. Hill is of Native American descent, and in that tradition identifies as a “Two Spirit.” The BOP identifies Ms. Hill as Scott Hill, Inmate Register Number 22297-038. Ms. Hill is presently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina (“FCI-Butner”). 5. Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons is a federal agency charged with holding in its custody persons who have been convicted of violating the laws of the United States and sentenced to a period of incarceration. The BOP is also charged with establishing policies and regulations of the federal prison system and ensuring the safety of prisoners in its custody. As set forth herein, the BOP has continuously failed to protect Ms. Hill from a substantial risk of serious harm and to provide Ms. Hill with adequate medical and mental healthcare. The BOP is sued in its official capacity. 6. Defendant Michael K. Nalley was the regional director for the BOP North Central Region, which encompasses USP-Florence, at all times relevant to this action. In that capacity, Defendant Nalley was responsible, among other things, for overseeing the operations of USPFlorence and for investigating and responding to second-level requests for administrative remedies made by USP-Florence prisoners, including Ms. Hill. As set forth herein, Defendant

	  

6

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 55

Nalley disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm posed to Ms. Hill by her being housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Nalley is sued in his individual capacity.
7. Defendant Charles E. Daniels was the warden of USP-Florence at all times relevant to this action. In that capacity, Defendant Daniels was charged with, among other things, ensuring the safety and adequate medical and mental health treatment of USP-Florence prisoners. As set forth herein, Defendant Daniels disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill while Ms. Hill was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Daniels is sued in his individual capacity.
8. Defendant Dr. Mark Carter, Psy.D. is and was, at all times relevant to this action, a staff psychologist at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Carter is responsible for providing mental health treatment to USP-Florence inmates. As set forth herein, Defendant Carter disregarded Ms. Hill’s known serious mental health needs during the entirety of her incarceration at USP-Florence, and disregarded the substantial risk of harm to Ms. Hill by virtue of her housing at USP-Florence. Defendant Carter is sued in his individual capacity.
9. Defendant Dr. Daniel Severn is and was, at all times relevant to this action, a staff psychiatrist at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Severn is responsible for providing mental health care to inmates housed at USP-Florence. As set forth herein, Defendant Severn disregarded Ms. Hill’s known serious mental health needs during the entirety of her incarceration at USP-Florence. Defendant Severn is sued in his individual capacity.
10. Defendant William Hutchings was a captain at USP-Florence at all times relevant to this action. In that capacity, Defendant Hutchings was charged with, among other things, ensuring the safety of USP-Florence prisoners. As set forth herein, Defendant Hutchings disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill and Ms. Hill’s serious medical and

	  

7

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 55
mental health needs while Ms. Hill was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Hutchings is sued in his individual capacity.
11. Defendant Lamont Anthony is and was, at all times relevant to this action, a correctional officer lieutenant at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Anthony was charged with, among other things, ensuring the safety of USP-Florence prisoners. As set forth herein, Defendant Anthony disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill and Ms. Hill’s serious medical and mental health needs while Ms. Hill was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Anthony is sued in his individual capacity.
12. Defendant Diane Borges is and was, at all times relevant to this action, a correctional counselor at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Borges is responsible for maintaining regular contact with inmates on her caseload and assisting them in various aspects of their daily lives. Defendant Borges was responsible for ensuring Ms. Hill’s safety while she was housed at USP-Florence. As set forth herein, Defendant Borges was aware of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill. Defendant Borges is sued in her individual capacity.
13. Defendant Richard Derr is and was, at all times relevant to this action, the Unit Manager of the USP-Florence D/A, and oversaw Ms. Hill’s housing assignments when she was housed at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Derr was responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of certain prisoners housed in the USP-Florence SHU, including Ms. Hill, and for making custody decisions, including cell assignments and transfer decisions, pertaining to USPFlorence SHU inmates. As set forth herein, Defendant Derr created and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill while she was housed in the USP-Florence SHU. Defendant Derr is sued in his individual capacity.

	  

8

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 55

14. Defendant Bernie Janusz is and was, at all times relevant to this action, a case manager at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Janusz is responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of prisoners on his caseload or about whom he is charged with making housing and protective custody decisions. As set forth herein, Defendant Janusz created and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill while she was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Janusz is sued in his individual capacity.
15. Defendant Gilbert Lyde was the Unit Manager of the USP-Florence D/A when Ms. Hill arrived at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Lyde was charged with, among other things, ensuring the safe housing of inmates, including Ms. Hill. As set forth herein, Defendant Lyde created and failed to respond reasonably to a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill while she was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Lyde is sued in his individual capacity.
16. Defendant Todd Javernick is and was, at all times relevant to this action, a staff member at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Javernick was charged with, among other things, ensuring the safe housing of inmates in his custody and/or making housing and protective custody decisions for inmates at USP-Florence, including Ms. Hill. As set forth herein, Defendant Javernick created and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill while she was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Javernick is sued in his individual capacity.
17. Defendant Steve Brown was a special investigative agent at USP-Florence at all times relevant to this action. In that capacity, Defendant Brown was charged with, among other things, ensuring the safe housing of and making decisions about protective custody for inmates housed at USP-Florence, including Ms. Hill. As set forth herein, Defendant Brown created and

	  

9

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 55
disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill while she was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Brown is sued in his individual capacity.
18. Defendant Kevin Johnson is and was, at all times relevant to this action, an associate warden at USP-Florence. In that capacity, Defendant Johnson was charged with, among other things, ensuring the safe housing of and making decisions about protective custody for inmates housed at USP-Florence, including Ms. Hill. As set forth herein, Defendant Johnson created and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Ms. Hill while she was housed at USP-Florence. Defendant Johnson is sued in his individual capacity.

TIMELINE OF TRAUMATIC EVENTS

	  

10

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 55

DATE March 13-18, 2001
2002 March 26, 2003
April 4, 2009
2010 June 10, 2010
October 18, 2010 to October 28, 2010
December 17, 2011 May 21, 2012 2013 September 11, 2014

LOCATION
United States Penitentiary, Lewisberg
United States Penitentiary, Allenwood United States Penitentiary, Allenwood
United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute
United States Penitentiary, Coleman II United States Penitentiary, Coleman II
United States Penitentiary, Victorville
United States Penitentiary, Florence United States Penitentiary, Tucson United States Penitentiary, Coleman II FCI Butner

NATURE OF INCIDENT
• Ms. Hill is raped while in protective custody by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder following the incident
• Ms. Hill is physically assaulted by another inmate while in protective custody
• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is assaulted by two other inmates with a five pound rock and a knife
• As a result of the assault, Ms. Hill receives 15 staples to her head and two stitches to her face
• Ms. Hill is again diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is repeatedly and violently sexually assaulted over the course of a ten-day period by her cellmate, a Latin Kings gang member
• Ms. Hill is again diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic without Delayed Onset
• Ms. Hill is, predictably and preventably, violently raped by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is physically assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill suffers an attempted sexual assault in the shower.

	  

11

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 55

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. Ms. Hill’s High Risk For Predation From Other Inmates 19. Prisons, including the BOP prisons where Ms. Hill has been housed, are highly predatory environments. There is a strict hierarchy within any prison system. Prisoners at the bottom of the hierarchy are perceived as weak and vulnerable, and as a result are relentlessly preyed upon by others. 20. Prisoners who appear feminine or physically weak, who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (“LGBT”), who have a known history of being preyed upon, and who have cooperated with law enforcement or “snitched” are considered to be at the bottom of the hierarchy and are therefore at a heightened risk of attack by other prisoners. 21. Ms. Hill is transgender,1 or a Two Spirit in the Native American tradition. Although Ms. Hill is physically a male, she identifies as a female. She strives to achieve a feminine appearance and to be recognized as a female by others. She is also has a naturally slight build, standing approximately five feet, five inches tall. She wears her hair long, wears make-up, and dresses as a female whenever possible. She requests that others refer to her using feminine pronouns. Ms. Hill has identified as female almost her entire life. 22. Because of her physical appearance, sexual orientation, history of sexual assault, and cooperation with law enforcement in reporting her history of sexual assault, Ms. Hill is at a very high risk of attack by other prisoners within the BOP. 23. The risk to Ms. Hill’s safety in a prison environment is obvious as a result of her appearance alone.

	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	    1 According to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (“GLAAD”), “‘transgender’ is
an umbrella term often used to refer to people whose gender identify differs from their assigned
sex at birth.”	  

	  

12

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 55

24. Ms. Hill has a long history of being sexually assaulted in the prison system. At a minimum, she was sexually assaulted at least eight times at five different United States Penitentiaries (“USPs”). She has endured additional physical assaults at many of the facilities where she has been housed, and, whenever she is housed at a USP, she receives frequent threats of sexual and physical assault.
25. Because Ms. Hill routinely reports these physical and sexual assaults to BOP officials, she has been identified by other prisoners as a snitch—someone who tells on other prisoners.
26. Even though Ms. Hill identifies and presents as female, she has always been housed in all-male prisons by the BOP because of her anatomy. The BOP has classified Ms. Hill to its highest custody level and routinely houses her in its highest security facilities, USPs. In fact, Ms. Hill has spent the vast majority of her incarceration in some of the BOP’s most violent USPs, including USP-Florence.
27. Because USPs are the most violent and dangerous of all federal prisons, the risk to a prisoner like Ms. Hill is significantly heightened when housed in a USP as opposed to a lower security prison, such as a Federal Correctional Institution “FCI,” a medium security BOP facility.
28. Nonetheless, Ms. Hill is still not safe, even when she is housed in FCIs. Because of Ms. Hill’s sexual orientation, she has often been forced to “check-in” at some of the FCIs at which she has been housed by voluntarily admitting herself to the SHU to prevent attacks from prisoners in the general population.
29. The USPs at which Ms. Hill has been physically or sexually assaulted are some of the BOPs most notoriously dangerous institutions.

	  

13

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 55

30. The risk to Ms. Hill’s safety is well-documented in her BOP records, which are replete with reports of the unwanted sexual propositioning and threats she received, in addition to the repeated assaults she suffered.
31. For example, the first page of Ms. Hill’s central file contains a large-print singlepage document that reads: “NOT TO BE TRANSFERRED OR PARTICIPATE IN COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES WITHOUT CMC CLEARANCE. SEE PROGRAM STATEMENT TITLED ‘CENTRAL INMATE MONITORING SYSTEM’.” (Ex. 1 (Notice).)
32. Numerous BOP personnel have acknowledged that Ms. Hill is at an inherent and obvious heightened risk of predation because of her sexual orientation, effeminate appearance, and history of physical and sexual assault.
33. For example, on July 18, 2002, USP-Allenwood Chief Psychologist John R. Mitchell, Psy.D. (“Dr. Mitchell”) advised other BOP officials that “[i]t must be emphasized how inappropriate inmate Hill is to remain at a penitentiary environment. [She] was unable to make it here for even three days without encountering pressure for sex from predatory inmates and requiring protective custody.” (Ex. 2 (Psychology Records) at SHILL00101 (emphasis added).)
34. Dr. Mitchell also noted in Ms. Hill’s telepsychiatry clinic and mental health evaluation, dated July 17, 2002, that Ms. Hill was “considered a high risk for being preyed upon by other inmates.” (Id. at SHILL00102 (emphasis added).)
35. In a February 10, 2003 Transfer Summary for Ms. Hill, Clinical Psychologist Georgina L. Ashlock, Ph.D. (U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri) noted that Ms. Hill “is in a predicament, in that [s]he requires protection from other inmates . . . [sh]e is at high risk of being sexually assaulted given [her] small size, youthful appearance,

	  

14

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 55

feminine mannerisms, and homosexual orientation.” Ms. Hill’s propensity for acting feminine, flirtatious, and provocative “contributes to [her] own victimization . . .” (Ex. 3 (Transfer Summary) at 4.) Accordingly, Dr. Ashlock recommended that she have “secure housing to protect [her] from other inmates . . .” because “M[s]. Hill is also at high risk of being sexually assaulted even without [her] provocative and inappropriate behavior because of [her] appearance, stature, and sexual orientation.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
36. In July 2003, Dr. Mitchell again recognized the safety risk to Ms. Hill, noting that “[Ms. Hill] has evidenced poor adjustment to BOP facilities throughout [her] incarceration, primarily due to [her] small physical stature, effeminate appearance, and homosexual background.” (Ex. 4 (Transfer Recommendation dated July 7, 2003).)
37. When treating Ms. Hill, Dr. Mitchell repeatedly alerted other BOP staff to Ms. Hill’s high risk for predation from other inmates through direct communications and notes in Ms. Hill’s psychology records.
38. Virtually every time Ms. Hill has been transferred to a new facility, her history of sexual victimization and the danger posed to her by being housed around other prisoners has been documented.
39. After ten years of repeated victimization without protection at USPs around the country, Ms. Hill was transferred back to USP-Allenwood in May 2013, and Dr. Mitchell again noted that “[i]t will be important for staff to be aware of how high a risk for victimization inmate Hill is.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000507-08 (emphasis added).)
40. Upon arrival to USP-Allenwood, BOP staff attempted to force Ms. Hill into general population. Dr. Mitchell quickly assisted Ms. Hill in obtaining a protective custody assignment in the SHU, however, to help insure Ms. Hill’s safety.

	  

15

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 55

41. In June 2013, Dr. Mitchell noted that Ms. “Hill is an inmate with a high risk of sexual victimization. [She] was on the compound for only a few days and ultimately had to request protective custody due to inmates pressuring [her] to not be on the compound. The primary concern I have for Hill remains [her] vulnerability for being sexually assaulted and sexually harassed.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000501.) Dr. Mitchell further recognized that Ms. Hill adapts successfully to medium-security prisons, and that such placements would “definitely reduce [her] PREA-related vulnerabilities rather than continuing to rotate [her] through various USP’s.” (Id.)
42. Dr. Mitchell also acknowledged that Ms. Hill’s high risk of victimization justified single-celling. (Ex. 2 at BOP000502.)
43. Also in June 2013, a BOP staff person acknowledged the causal relationship between Ms. Hill’s characteristics, identity, and history of assault to her repeated experience of sexual assault in the BOP. In responding to a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for Ms. Hill’s complete central, medical, and mental health files made, a BOP employee stated, “I wanted to give you a head’s up that there is a lot of information in those documents regarding [her] sexual preference…definitely this file’s very sensitive, there’s a lot of sensitive issues, so not sure if these paperworks are getting back to [her] or not, but…if so please use caution because [she], you know, [she’s] had…several cases of being assaulted…in prison due to things like that.”
44. In July 2013, Ms. Hill was transferred from USP-Allenwood to USP-Terre Haute—another prison at which she has a history of being assaulted. During a Risk of Sexual Victimization consultation upon Ms. Hill’s transfer to USP-Terre Haute, the psychology staff reported that Ms. Hill “may be at higher risk of sexual victimization than other inmates.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000494 (emphasis added).)

	  

16

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 55
45. During her transfer from USP-Allenwood to USP-Terre Haute, Dr. Mitchell reported on July 8, 2013, in a Recommendation for Management Variable to refer Ms. Hill to a lower-level security facility, that Ms. Hill “is a gender-identity disordered inmate who appears outwardly effeminate and has the gender identity of a female. As such, [she] is at high risk for sexual victimization from predatory inmates” and that “[p]redatory inmates who are likely to prey on inmate Hill are at greater numbers in high-security penitentiaries.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000499.) Dr. Mitchell also acknowledged that Ms. Hill “has shown a pattern of not being able to safely exist in general population at USP high-security settings due to [her] high risk of victimization. . . and it is anticipated that this pattern would continue if [s]he is transferred to another USP.” (Id. (emphasis added).) Dr. Mitchell further recognized that “[c]ontinued placement at USP facilities would represent an increased risk for Hill to be subject to further episodes of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault,” and noted that even at USPTucson, a supposedly safe USP, Ms. Hill was not safe and had to be placed in protective custody. (Id.)
46. Dr. Mitchell concluded that “it is believed Hill will be safest at a medium-security facility and that continued placement at USP facilities would only ensure that inmate Hill remains a long-term protective custody case who languishes in SHU settings due to the safety risks that would befall [her] if in a general population setting at a USP.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
47. In November 2013, BOP staff recognized the elevated risk posed to Ms. Hill based on her sexuality. Ted. L. Wunderlich, staff psychologist at Oklahoma City FTC, where Ms. Hill was briefly housed, indicated that Ms. Hill “does appear to be at an elevated risk for

	  

17

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 55
victimization due to [her] self reported transgender status.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000468 (emphasis added).)
48. As recently as March 2014, BOP personnel have recognized that Ms. Hill “presents with a significantly increased risk for sexual victimization given [her] identification as transgendered, history of sexual victimization while incarcerated . . . , and [her] smaller physical stature.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000158 (emphasis added).)
49. The BOP also has, in the past, repeatedly acknowledged the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety by placing her on protective custody (“PC”) status, albeit temporarily.
50. PC is a classification status intended to provide additional protection to prisoners who are at a heightened risk of assault at the hands of other prisoners. While the protections afforded by PC status may vary, they can include assignment to a single cell (without a cellmate), directives to keep certain prisoners away from the prisoner on PC status, and directives that the prisoner be allowed to recreate, shower, and conduct other activities of daily life alone.
51. Even when on PC status, prisoners are not necessarily physically separated from prisoners who are not on PC status. On information and belief, there is no BOP facility that houses only prisoners on PC status.
52. In Ms. Hill’s case, placement on PC status has never afforded adequate protections from assault by other prisoners.
B. The Risk To Ms. Hill’s Safety While Housed At USP-Florence And Defendants’ Deliberate Indifference To This Risk
53. From approximately December 2010 to January 2012, Ms. Hill was housed at USP-Florence.

	  

18

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 55
54. The risk of predation by other inmates posed to Ms. Hill at USP-Florence was extraordinary and obvious.
55. Defendants Nalley, Daniels, Carter, Severn, Hutchings, Anthony, Borges, Derr, Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, and Johnson (collectively, the “Individual Capacity Defendants”) were aware that Ms. Hill was at a high risk of physical and/or sexual assault from other inmates in the USP-Florence SHU but failed to respond reasonably to that risk, which ultimately led to her rape on December 17, 2011. The Individual Capacity Defendants’ knowledge of and failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety was willful, wanton, callous, and reckless.
56. To begin with, each of the Individual Capacity Defendants knew that immediately prior to her transfer to USP-Florence, Ms. Hill endured approximately ten days of sexual assault at the hands of her cellmate, a Latin Kings gang member, at the USP in Victorville, California (“USP-Victorville”) and that Ms. Hill was at a heightened risk for future sexual assaults as a result.
57. Ms. Hill reported the multiple rapes she had suffered to BOP officials and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) investigation was initiated. Ms. Hill was also placed on PC status as a result of the rapes.
58. After the rapes, Ms. Hill and her USP-Victorville assailant, Kenneth Lucez, were both transferred from the Victorville Correctional Complex (“VCC”) to other BOP facilities.
59. When BOP prisoners are transferred, they fly from their originating facility to the federal transfer center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (“FTC-Oklahoma”), and from FTCOklahoma, on to their destination facility.

	  

19

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 55

60. Ms. Hill and Lucez were destined for different facilities after they left VCC, but were transferred from VCC to FTC-Oklahoma on the same plane.
61. Also on the plane from VCC to FTC-Oklahoma were other Latin Kings gang members who were associated with Lucez. Some of these gang members were ultimately transferred to USP-Florence with Ms. Hill.
62. During the transfer process, Lucez identified Ms. Hill as a snitch to his associates because Ms. Hill had reported to BOP officials that he had raped her.
63. On trips to and from the bathroom on the plane, Lucez also threatened Ms. Hill’s life.
64. In her intake screening with Defendant Carter, Ms. Hill reported her history of sexual assault.
65. Ms. Hill additionally reported her history of sexual assault at USP-Victorville and fears of future assault to Defendants Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, and Johnson. Ms. Hill requested protective custody from Defendants Carter, Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, and Johnson.
66. Recognizing the risk of predation and assault posed to Ms. Hill, the BOP initially placed Ms. Hill in a single cell (without a cellmate) and afforded other protections that prevented her from being assaulted by other prisoners. (Ex. 2 at SHILL00204 (noting that Ms. Hill “is currently housed solo on the SHU so [s]he is safe . . .”).)
67. Defendants Carter, Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, and Johnson were aware that Ms. Hill was initially placed in a single cell at USP-Florence for her own protection.
68. On January 1, 2011, Ms. Hill sought an administrative remedy of being classified “single cell warranted” to protect her from future physical or sexual assaults, explaining that she

	  

20

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 55
had attempted to informally resolve her complaint by explaining her fears and concerns to the psychology department, the unit team, and Defendant Daniels, amongst others. Ms. Hill specifically notified the BOP and staff that she feared placing her with another inmate in protective custody, without evaluating the other inmate’s history of violence, physical assault, sexual assault, gang status, or other characteristics did not provide sufficient protection for a vulnerable non-violent inmate such as Ms. Hill, and that she was an “obvious target or ‘prey’ for both physical/sexual assault by others: based on [her] slight or youthful physical build, gay, feminine appearance, snitch (report rape), [and] prior state charge of sex offender.” Defendants Lyde and Borges acknowledged receipt of and denied Ms. Hill’s request for administrative remedy.
69. Even though the threat to Ms. Hill’s safety was well-documented and obvious, Defendants Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, and Johnson concluded that there existed no verifiable threat to Ms. Hill’s safety on January 25, 2011.
70. As a consequence of Defendants Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, and Johnson’s findings, Defendants Borges, Derr, and an unknown lieutenant ordered that Ms. Hill’s PC status (that had been awarded at USP-Victorville) be removed and directed that Ms. Hill be housed with a cellmate in the USP-Florence SHU.
71. The USP-Florence SHU houses inmates who have committed disciplinary infractions and who are awaiting transfer to the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum (“ADX”), among other people. Accordingly, the pool of inmates from which Ms. Hill’s cellmate would be selected was, in general, particularly dangerous and disruptive segment of the USP-Florence inmate population.

	  

21

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 55
72. After Defendants Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, Johnson, Borges, and Derr removed Ms. Hill’s PC status, creating and exacerbating a risk to her safety, Ms. Hill notified the other Individual Capacity Defendants numerous times that she was at a risk of attack by other inmates.
73. For example, Ms. Hill filed a Request For Administrative Remedy on January 20, 2011, complaining that she feared for her safety because she was being forced to take a cellmate, and that once her current cellmate was released, she would be subject to predation again. (Ex. 5 (Request For Administrative Remedy, dated January 20, 2011).)
74. Ms. Hill repeatedly requested that the BOP keep her in PC instead of mandating that she take a cellmate based on her fears of threats to her safety from being in the general population, but though both Borges and Derr were fully informed of the risks to Ms. Hill’s safety, they signed the denial of Ms. Hill’s request to remain in PC anyhow. (Id.)
75. Defendants Daniels and Nalley denied Ms. Hill’s appeals for request for a safe housing assignment made in her January 20, 2011 request for administrative remedy. (Id.)
76. Ms. Hill sought an administrative remedy when her protests did not convince Defendants Borges and Derr to retain her PC status. Defendant Daniels reviewed Ms. Hill’s explicit explanation of her history of sexual exploitation, her fears of further assaults, and the efforts she had made to convince the USP-Florence Defendants to keep her in PC, and signed the form denying Ms. Hill’s request for an administrative remedy, concluding that there was no verifiable threat to her safety at USP-Florence and thus denying her request to be single celled.
77. Ms. Hill also directly informed each of the Individual Capacity Defendants of the risks to her safety and requested that they take action to protect her via multiple cop-outs (letters)

	  

22

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 55
and verbal conversations. None of the Individual Capacity Defendants responded to Ms. Hill’s requests for safe housing.
78. Without the minimal protections afforded to her by PC status, and as a direct result of the decision by Defendants Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, Johnson, Borges, and Derr to strip Ms. Hill of her protective custody and forcing her to have a cellmate, and Defendants Daniels’ and Nalley’s ratification and affirmation of that decision, the risk to Ms. Hill’s safety was substantially increased.
79. Defendant Carter also reviewed Ms. Hill’s requests for protective custody and was aware of the substantial risk to her safety that existed at USP-Florence. Nonetheless, Defendant Carter failed to take any measures to ensure Ms. Hill’s safety and in fact repeatedly attempted to coerce Ms. Hill into the extremely dangerous general population at USP-Florence by withholding mental health treatment on the ground that she needed to be “on the compound”—in other words, in general population—before he would provide such treatment.
80. Even though Defendants Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, Johnson, Borges, Derr, Daniels, and Carter exhibited deliberate indifference to Ms. Hill’s need and requests for safe housing, Ms. Hill persisted in expressing her concerns.
81. For example, Ms. Hill filed an Inmate Request to Staff directed to Defendant Severn on April 20, 2011, expressing her fears of being raped or physically assaulted.
82. Predictably, after her removal from PC, prisoners began soliciting Ms. Hill for sex through “kites,” which are written notes passed between prisoners. Some of these kites were sexually threatening. (E.g., Ex. 6 (Kite).) Ms. Hill showed these threatening, sexually explicit kites to USP-Florence SHU staff, including Defendants Derr, Anthony, Borges, and Lyde.

	  

23

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 55

83. Knowing that the risk to her safety was increased by other prisoners’ knowledge that she had previously been sexually assaulted and was LGBT, Ms. Hill continued to request, through administrative remedies, kites, cop-outs, and verbal conversations, that she be placed back on PC status, afforded a single cell, and separated from prisoners who posed a risk to her safety. Ms. Hill requested safe housing from each and every one of the Individual Capacity Defendants.
84. Ms. Hill’s repeated requests for a safe housing assignment were denied and/or ignored by the Individual Capacity Defendants.
85. Ms. Hill’s repeated requests for a safe housing assignment further bolstered her reputation as a snitch amongst the USP-Florence SHU prisoners.
86. To make matters worse, Defendants Anthony and Hutchings exacerbated the risk to Ms. Hill’s safety while housed in the USP-Florence SHU.
87. In early 2011, Defendant Hutchings removed Ms. Hill and her cellmate from the SHU and handcuffed them together inside a recreation cage. Under these conditions, Defendant Hutchings forced Ms. Hill to recount the details of the USP-Victorville rapes so that her cellmate could hear.
88. Defendant Hutchings engaged in this conduct because Ms. Hill had sent complaints about the USP-Victorville rapes to various BOP officials and governmental investigative agencies (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation).
89. After Defendant Hutchings forced Ms. Hill to recount the details of the USPVictorville rapes in the presence of another prisoner, he removed all of Ms. Hill’s property from her cell for 48 hours to prevent her from writing further complaints about her conditions of confinement.

	  

24

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 55

90. Thereafter, and as a direct consequence of Defendant Hutching’s conduct, USPFlorence SHU prisoners (in addition to Lucez’s associates) learned of Ms. Hill’s history of sexual assault, which significantly increased the risk to her safety.
91. Ms. Hill continued to receive sexually threatening kites from USP-Florence SHU inmates after this incident.
92. In response to continued threats to Ms. Hill’s safety, Ms. Hill again requested that she be placed back on PC status, afforded a single cell, and separated from prisoners who posed a risk to her safety.
93. Knowing of Ms. Hill’s repeated requests for a safe housing assignment, again in early 2011, Defendant Anthony called Ms. Hill a “little bitch” in audible range of other USPFlorence SHU prisoners and disclosed to those prisoners that Ms. Hill had cried in his office. Defendant Anthony’s conduct caused Ms. Hill her to appear weak to other SHU prisoners, and thereby exacerbated the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety.
94. Defendants’ Hutchings and Anthony’s conduct created the same risk to Ms. Hill’s safety as would have been created if they had labeled Ms. Hill a snitch.
95. Throughout the course of her time at USP-Florence, Ms. Hill repeatedly requested mental health treatment for trauma symptoms related to the USP-Victorville rapes and other rapes she had endured in BOP custody and, in the course of those requests, Ms. Hill reported to Defendants Carter and Severn that there were existing threats to her safety at USP-Florence and that she feared future sexual and physical assaults.
96. Despite Ms. Hill’s pleas for help, Defendants Carter and Severn did not provide mental health treatment, but instead repeatedly withheld treatment, claiming that such treatment could not be provided while Ms. Hill was living in the SHU. They denied Ms. Hill psychological

	  

25

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 55

treatment for her PTSD and RTS even though they knew that Ms. Hill was in the SHU for her own safety and that she had a well-founded fear of assault and abuse should she be moved into the general population.
97. Based on their repeated consultations with Ms. Hill and written requests Ms. Hill submitted to them, Defendants Carter and Severn knew that Ms. Hill was a person in need of heightened protection due to her effeminate appearance, history of sexual assaults, LGBT identity, and reputation as a snitch.
98. On two occasions, Defendant Borges went so far as to punish Ms. Hill for doing all that was in her power to protect herself by finding Ms. Hill guilty of disciplinary infractions for “Refusing a Program Assignment” and “Refusing a Direct Order.” On April 1, 2011, and September 22, 2011, Defendant Borges found that Ms. Hill had refused to obey an order to leave the SHU and go into general population at USP-Florence, and that Ms. Hill had therefore violated BOP rules. On both occasions, Ms. Hill defended against the charges by informing Defendant Borges that she was not safe in general population and could not leave the SHU.
99. In approximately August 2011, Defendants Daniels, and Derr temporarily transferred Ms. Hill to FCI-Florence, a lower security prison. On information and belief, this transfer was effectuated because Defendants Daniels and Derr were aware of the high risk of assault Ms. Hill faced while housed in the USP-Florence SHU. Nonetheless, Defendants Daniels and Derr transferred Ms. Hill back to the USP-Florence SHU in the fall of 2011, knowing of the substantial risk of serious harm posed to her by that placement.
100. Upon her return to USP-Florence, the counselor conducting Ms. Hill’s intake interview concluded that Ms. Hill should not be placed in the general population for numerous reasons, including that she had assisted law enforcement officers, had testified against others in

	  

26

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 55

court (i.e., was a “snitch”), and was a CIM case. The counselor conducting the interview noted that he or she had reviewed Ms. Hill’s central file, which detailed her history of sexual abuse and assault, her mental health history, and the necessity of providing protective housing.
101. Ms. Hill was, accordingly, sent back to the USP-Florence SHU. 102. When Ms. Hill was sent back to the USP-Florence SHU, Defendant Derr told her that she had “made the choice” to come back to USP-Florence from FCI-Florence (where she had been relatively safe) by filing requests for administrative remedies about her unsafe and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 103. Upon assignment to the USP-Florence SHU, Defendants Derr, Hutchings, Anthony, Borges, and Carter indiscriminately assigned Ms. Hill a cellmate without consideration for the documented and obvious risks to her safety. Predictably, that cellmate began threatening and physically assaulting Ms. Hill. 104. On December 6, 2011, Ms. Hill reported to Defendant Carter that her cellmate was physically assaulting her. According to Defendant Carter’s notes, he reported these physical assaults and recommended a cell reassignment to the SHU lieutenant. On information and belief, this SHU lieutenant was Defendant Anthony. 105. Even though he knew that her cellmate was physically assaulting her, Defendant Carter took Ms. Hill back to that cell and did not remove her immediately to protect her safety. 106. No BOP official took any action to remove Ms. Hill from these known dangerous conditions for two days. 107. Two days after Defendant Carter documented Ms. Hill’s need for protection from her cellmate, she was transferred into another cell with another dangerous inmate in early December 2011.

	  

27

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 55

108. Knowing of Ms. Hill’s vulnerability to sexual and physical assault and particular risk posed by Ms. Hill’s cellmate in December 2011, Defendants failed to respond reasonably to this risk to when, among other things:
a. They removed her PC status upon arrival to USP-Florence (Defendants Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, Johnson, Borges, and Daniels);
b. They forced her, on multiple occasions, to live with a cellmate (Defendants Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, Johnson, Borges, Derr, and Anthony);
c. They failed to choose a suitable, non-predatory cellmate for her (Defendants Janusz, Lyde, Javernick, Brown, Hutchings, Johnson, Borges, Derr, and Anthony);
d. They failed to respond to Ms. Hill’s requests for a safe housing assignment (All Individual Capacity Defendants);
e. They failed to timely transfer Ms. Hill to an FCI (Defendants Daniels and Derr);
f. After they did transfer Ms. Hill to FCI-Florence, they moved her back to the USP-Florence SHU and forced her to accept a cellmate (Defendants Daniels and Derr);
g. Defendant Borges disciplined Ms. Hill for refusing to enter general population, which would have been even more dangerous than the USPFlorence SHU;
h. Defendant Anthony physically assaulted Ms. Hill for refusing to accept a predatory and dangerous cellmate;

	  

28

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 55
i. They disregarded and failed to take action after learning that numerous USPFlorence SHU inmates had sent sexually threatening kites to Ms. Hill (Defendants Derr, Anthony, Borges, and Lyde);
j. They failed to reasonably respond to Ms. Hill’s numerous requests to staff and requests for administrative remedies asking for a safe housing assignment (All Individual Capacity Defendants);
k. They failed to assign Ms. Hill a new cellmate after she complained that hers was physically assaulting her (Defendants Carter and Anthony);
l. They exacerbated a hostile and unsafe environment for Ms. Hill in the USPFlorence SHU (Defendants Hutchings and Anthony); and
m. Defendant Carter attempted to coerce Ms. Hill into an even more dangerous general population setting at USP-Florence by withholding mental health treatment.
109. The consequences of the Defendants’ failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety during the period in which she was housed in the USP-Florence SHU were grave.
110. The night of December 16, 2011, Ms. Hill’s cellmate began stuffing rosary beads into the tip of his penis and commented to Ms. Hill to the effect of, “If you wake it, you’re going to burp it till it spits.”
111. Ms. Hill immediately notified the Number 1 SHU Officer, Angela McAlister – the then current officer in command – that she was at imminent risk of harm and that she needed to be removed from her cell.

	  

29

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 55

112. Ms. McAlister came to Ms. Hill’s cell and told her there was no space to move her to a different cell.
113. Hours later, shortly after midnight December 17, 2011, Ms. Hill was violently raped by her cellmate, who Defendants had been informed at least 10 days previously was violent and posed an extreme risk to Ms. Hill.
114. With the rosary beads still in his penis, the assailant caused significant tearing to Ms. Hill’s anus. (Ex. 7 (St. Thomas More Hospital Records).)
115. Because Ms. Hill feared further attack if she attempted to alert USP-Florence staff that she had been raped, and because the cell in which Ms. Hill was housed was not equipped with any sort of emergency or panic button, Ms. Hill remained silent for the rest of the night. Until the morning, Ms. Hill was forced to sit in underwear wet with her assailant’s semen and hold back tears and screams. For hours, Ms. Hill sat with her violent, predatory attacker only feet from her while having to relive the assault over and over again in her mind.
116. The first person to come by Ms. Hill’s cell in the morning was a nurse, who came to deliver Ms. Hill’s medications at approximately nine o’clock a.m.
117. Ms. Hill passed the nurse a note saying that she’d been raped and needed to be taken out of the cell immediately. In the note, Ms. Hill instructed the nurse to say Ms. Hill needed to be removed for blood work so as not to alert Ms. Hill’s cellmate that Ms. Hill had told staff he had raped her. In response to the note, the nurse loudly said, “Is this real? Are you for real? This better be real.”
118. The nurse finally notified guards, who came to remove Ms. Hill from the cell. 119. The guards took Ms. Hill to be interviewed for approximately an hour, where she was forced to sit in the clothes still soaked with her rapist’s semen.

	  

30

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 55

120. Because she was suffering extreme trauma, Ms. Hill’s teeth were chattering during the interview. An officer, whose name is unknown, asked, “What, are you cold?” Ms. Hill responded, “No, don’t you understand how I feel right now?” The officer responded, “No, I’ve never had a dick in my ass.”
121. Throughout the course of the interview, this officer repeatedly expressed the opinion that men who identify as gay or transgendered cannot be raped because, under certain circumstances, they have consented to sex with someone of the same sex.
122. Following the interview, Ms. Hill was placed in the SHU “shock cell,” a small, glass encased observation cell. While she was in the shock cell, multiple guards passed by and snickered and laughed at Ms. Hill, who was crying and visibly upset.
123. Ms. Hill was forced to continue to sit in clothes soaked in her rapist’s semen while she was in the shock cell.
124. After spending approximately one hour in the shock cell, guards took Ms. Hill to the intake area of the prison and removed her clothing and put it in a paper bag. They provided Ms. Hill with fresh clothing in preparation for transportation to the hospital.
125. Before leading Ms. Hill to the transport van, guards placed a blindfold over Ms. Hill’s eyes. It is not standard protocol to blindfold inmates during transport and Ms. Hill has never been blindfolded during transport before, including during her transport to USP-Florence.
126. Ms. Hill was transported to and received medical treatment at St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City, Colorado. (Ex. 7.)
127. Ms. Hill was taken back to the USP-Florence SHU and remained there for approximately two weeks, although she was then single-celled and kept away from all other inmates.

	  

31

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 55

128. On December 30, 2011, Ms. Hill was transferred to FCI-Florence, where she was again given PC status.
129. The Individual Capacity Defendants’ knowledge of and failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety were the direct cause of severe physical and emotional injuries Ms. Hill received as a result of the December 17, 2011 rape.
130. Each of the Individual Capacity Defendants’ knowledge of and failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety, as set forth herein, was willful, wanton, callous, and reckless.
131. As a consequence of the December 17, 2011 rape, Ms. Hill suffered physical injuries and severe emotional distress and pain and suffering.
C. The BOP’s Ongoing Failure To Respond Reasonably To The Risk Posed To Ms. Hill and the Resultant Harm Suffered
132. Since the December 17, 2011 rape, the BOP has continued to fail to safely house Ms. Hill. Repeating the pattern and practice that has caused Ms. Hill to be raped or physically assaulted at every USP she has ever been housed at, the BOP refuses to afford Ms. Hill a centralized, non-terminable PC status and permanent safe housing assignment that meets her needs as a transgendered prisoner and as a person who faces extraordinary risk of serious harm. Specifically, the BOP continues to transfer Ms. Hill from prison to prison, supposedly to effectuate her PC classification, and upon arrival to each new prison, strips her of that classification and attempts to force her into the general population. She is then forced to enter a double cell in the SHU, where she is predictably assaulted, at which point the BOP reactively reassigns Ms. Hill PC status and transfers her—again supposedly to effectuate the PC classification—only to have the cycle repeat all over again. The fundamental problem with the BOP’s policy and practice as applied to Ms. Hill is that it completely fails to recognize and

	  

32

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 55
account for the de facto risk of serious harm Ms. Hill faces each and every day at each and every male prison on account of her status as a transgendered prisoner, as a prisoner with a history of rape and other physical assault, as a snitch, and as a prisoner perceived by others to be effeminate and weak.
133. After USP-Florence, Ms. Hill was transferred to the USP in Tucson, Arizona (“USP-Tucson”), where, in accordance with BOP policy and practice, the PC designation she received after the USP-Florence rape was removed. Consequently, and again in accordance with BOP policy and practice, USP-Tucson staff attempted to force Ms. Hill into general population.
134. Knowing that she would certainly by physically and sexually assaulted in general population, and possibly even killed, Ms. Hill refused to enter general population. In so doing, she continued to notify BOP staff that she faced a significant and obvious risk of harm.
135. Again, in accordance with BOP policy and practice, USP-Tucson staff assigned Ms. Hill to a double-cell in the USP-Tucson SHU.
136. Predictably and in keeping with the pattern of Ms. Hill’s past victimization, Ms. Hill’s cellmate in the USP-Tucson SHU physically assaulted her on multiple occasions, which Ms. Hill reported to USP-Tucson staff.
137. She was subsequently given PC status and transferred to a USP in Coleman, Florida (“USP-Coleman I”).
138. Ms. Hill had been previously housed at USP Coleman I and had a documented history of being sexually assaulted there. Fearing for her safety at that facility, USP-Coleman I staff would not allow Ms. Hill into the general population, and submitted a transfer request for her.

	  

33

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 55

139. Ms. Hill was then transferred to a different USP in Coleman, Florida (“USPColeman II”), where she was forced to continue to live in the SHU because she was not safe in general population.
140. BOP officials placed Ms. Hill in the USP-Coleman II SHU with a gang dropout with a history of sexual assault. Predictably, this inmate sexually assaulted Ms. Hill, and she was again placed on PC status and recommended for transfer.
141. After a brief holdover at the USP in Atlanta, Georgia, Ms. Hill was transferred to USP-Allenwood, where she also had a history of sexual and physical assault. Upon arrival to USP-Allenwood, Ms. Hill immediately notified staff that she was not safe, and was forced, again, to live in the SHU.
142. Ms. Hill’s transfer to USP-Allenwood allowed her to be reunited with Dr. Mitchell, who has, as set forth above, been a vocal advocate for Ms. Hill to ensure her safety in the BOP.
143. Even though Dr. Mitchell continued to emphasize the inherent safety risk posed to Ms. Hill by her placement in the USP environment, on or around July 19, 2013, the BOP transferred Ms. Hill to the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute (“USP-Terre Haute”).
144. Ms. Hill had previously been assaulted at USP-Terre Haute and experienced significant anxiety and emotional distress when she was returned to that facility.
145. Given her history of assault at USP-Terre Haute and the inherent risk posed to her safety by being housed at the USP custody level, her safety remained at constant risk so long as she was housed there.
146. From USP-Terre Haute, Ms. Hill was transferred to the FCI in Butner, North Carolina (“FCI-Butner”). Although, on information and belief there is no formal or written

	  

34

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 55
policy designating it as such, FCI-Butner is typically regarded as a prison that houses and treats the medical and mental health needs of transgendered inmates.
147. The ray of hope that emerged when Ms. Hill was transferred to FCI-Butner was quickly extinguished, however. Ms. Hill was transferred from FCI-Butner for medical treatment only two months after her arrival, and then sent back to Allenwood, Pennsylvania.
148. Although Ms. Hill was, this time, assigned to the FCI in Allenwood (“FCIAllenwood”), where she was initially able to enter general population, she quickly faced hostility and threats from the inmate population and was forced to enter the SHU.
149. On September 11, 2014, Ms. Hill was transferred back to FCI-Butner. The BOP purports to have transferred Ms. Hill to FCI-Butner to receive treatment for her gender dysphoria.
150. On information and belief, FCI-Butner manages a program for sexually violent predators. The inmates who participate in this program are general population inmates who have access to other inmates, including transgender inmates, housed at FCI-Butner.
151. Within four hours of her arrival at FCI-Butner, a male inmate attempted to sexually assault her in the shower. On information and belief, this inmate is a participant in FCIButner’s program for sexually violent predators.
152. After this attempted sexual assault, Ms. Hill was transferred to another unit at FCI-Butner. Today, she is housed in a dormitory style area with 21 other males. She is one of two transgender inmates housed in this area.
153. Ms. Hill is housed with a male cellmate.

	  

35

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 55
154. None of the cell doors at FCI-Butner lock, which creates a grave risk that any inmate, including a sexually violent predator, could enter Ms. Hill’s cell at any time and physically and/or sexually assault her.
155. FCI-Butner is extraordinarily overcrowded. 156. FCI-Butner is not a safe housing assignment for Ms. Hill. 157. Despite the ongoing risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety, the BOP has completely failed to take reasonable measures to abate the inherent and substantial risk to Ms. Hill absent permanent PC status and/or single celling. For example, the BOP has failed to mandate that Ms. Hill be housed at no higher than the FCI custody level to preclude her placement in USPs, which are notoriously violent. The BOP has also failed to afford Ms. Hill a centralized PC designation that would require that she receive protection yet not be housed in the damaging and isolating conditions of the SHU wherever she is housed within the agency. Instead, The BOP has left individual facilities to create their own PC policies, which has resulted in inconsistent application of protective measures to Ms. Hill. 158. Moreover, the BOP has failed to house Ms. Hill in a facility commensurate with her needs as a transgender prisoner. Instead, the BOP has continued to house Ms. Hill in male institutions. 159. Ms. Hill’s continuous transfers between dangerous BOP facilities, and the BOP’s failure to provide a safe environment for her, demonstrate the agency’s ongoing deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of harm posed to Ms. Hill.

	  

36

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 55

D. Ms. Hill’s Serious Medical And Mental Health Needs Arising From Repeated Rapes She Has Endured While In BOP Custody
160. As a result of the USP-Victorville rapes and other rapes she has endured while in BOP custody, including the USP-Florence rape, Ms. Hill has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and Rape Trauma Syndrome (“RTS”).
161. PTSD is a psychological condition commonly experienced by rape survivors. The condition causes persons who have suffered trauma to experience trauma symptoms even when not directly experiencing a trauma. PTSD is a condition that can last indefinitely.
162. Like PTSD, RTS is a psychological condition brought on by the traumatic experience of rape. RTS disrupts cognitive, emotional, physical, and interpersonal functioning. RTS is a condition that can last for years.
163. Symptoms Ms. Hill experiences that are associated with PTSD and RTS include, but are not limited to:
a. Extreme anxiety and panic attacks; b. Fear and extreme nervousness; c. Overwhelming guilt and shame; d. Sleep deprivation; e. Hopelessness and helplessness; f. Difficulty maintaining close relationships; g. Flashbacks and reliving of past rapes and physical assaults; h. Upsetting dreams; i. Cognitive difficulties; j. Frequent crying; k. Mood swings;

	  

37

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 55
l. Dissociation; m. Fatigue; and n. Tension. 164. The most effective treatment for both PTSD and RTS is talk therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy. Other types of psychotherapy treatment may be appropriate. 165. PTSD and RTS constitute serious medical and mental health needs. E. Defendants Carter and Severn’s Failure to Provide Adequate Mental Health Treatment For Ms. Hill’s Rape Trauma Syndrome And Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 166. To ease her mental suffering and symptoms associated with her PTSD and RTS, Ms. Hill repeatedly requested mental health treatment in the form of talk therapy and medication from while at USP-Florence. 167. Defendants Carter and Severn were assigned to treat Ms. Hill and therefore received these repeated requests for help. However, Defendant Carter repeatedly failed to reasonably respond to Ms. Hill’s requests for mental health treatment. 168. Dr. Severn likewise was repeatedly directly asked for treatment – both medication and consultation – for Ms. Hill’s RTS and did not timely respond or provide treatment as requested. 169. Specifically, Defendants Carter and Severn’s actions included, but were not limited to: a. Repeatedly denying Ms. Hill talk therapy not on the grounds that it was
unnecessary medical treatment, but, rather, on the grounds that she could only receive such treatment if she “agreed to come out to the compound,” even

	  

38

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 55
though Ms. Hill’s life would have been threatened by entering general population at USP-Florence; and b. Repeatedly creating signed written records indicating that Ms. Hill had not requested mental health treatment and was not experiencing any significant mental health symptoms that would require treatment greater than that she was being provided even though Ms. Hill had repeatedly indicated she was in need of mental health treatment and had repeatedly requested such treatment. 170. In addition, although Defendants Carter and Severn continued Ms. Hill’s prescription for medication intended to aid in treating her PTSD and RTS symptoms, medication alone constituted grossly inadequate treatment. Defendants Carter and Severn knew and recognized that additional treatment – namely, talk therapy – was necessary and appropriate treatment for Ms. Hill, but denied such treatment without grounds. 171. Defendants Carter and Severn’s conduct constituted deliberate indifference to Ms. Hill’s serious medical and mental health needs. 172. Defendants Carter and Severn’s failure to provide mental health treatment to Ms. Hill was willful, wanton, callous, and reckless. F. The BOP’s Ongoing Failure To Treat Ms. Hill’s Rape Trauma Syndrome And Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 173. Since her transfer from USP-Florence, the BOP has continued to fail to adequately treat Ms. Hill’s PTSD and RTS. 174. Ms. Hill continues to suffer severe symptoms of PTSD and RTS. Yet, the BOP has failed to afford Ms. Hill meaningful, consistent, and adequate medical and mental health treatment.

	  

39

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 55

175. The Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”), a federal statute intended to provide greater protection and improve rape trauma-related services available to survivors of prison rape, requires that prisons, including the BOP, provide timely and appropriate medical and mental health care after a prisoner has been raped. The PREA requirements, while not giving rise to a cause of action on their own, provide guidance as to what constitutes adequate medical and mental health treatment after a prisoner has suffered a rape.
176. An express purpose of PREA is to bring the BOP into compliance with the Eighth Amendment.
177. Specifically, the Department of Justice regulations that implement PREA require, among other things, the BOP to provide timely and appropriate medical and mental health care to victims of sexual abuse, and provide the victim access to victim advocates from rape crisis centers for emotional support services relate to the sexual abuse. In addition, these regulations seek to restrict the use of SHU or solitary confinement as a means of protecting vulnerable inmates and require the BOP to create a safer environment through training and screening protocols, education of inmates and guards, development of protocols that encourage reporting of abuse, and requiring more prompt and thorough investigation of claims of rape.
178. The BOP has failed to comply with these regulations by not providing consistent, continuous, adequate, or appropriate mental health treatment to Ms. Hill, as well as by housing Ms. Hill in SHU as the only means of protecting her from further assaults.
179. Although Ms. Hill has had some access to mental health care providers who have provided talk therapy, that access has been minimal, sporadic at best, and insufficient to appropriately treat her PTSD and RTS. As of the date of this Amended Complaint, Ms. Hill does not have access to any talk therapy or other adequate emotional support services.

	  

40

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 55
180. In addition, Ms. Hill’s long-term placement in the SHU, which she has been forced to endure because the BOP has failed to house her at adequately safe facilities, also has exacerbated the symptoms of her PTSD and RTS.
181. The BOP’s failure to consistently and appropriately safely house Ms. Hill exacerbates the symptoms of her PTSD and RTS.
182. These failures constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical and mental health need.
G. Gender Dysphoria 183. Ms. Hill has gender dysphoria, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (“DSM-V”). 184. The American Psychiatric Association, in the DSM-V, describes transgender persons as those who suffer from gender dysphoria. The diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria include a long-standing and strong identification with another gender, long-standing disquiet about the sex assigned or a sense of incongruity in the gender-assigned role of that sex, no physical intersex characteristics, and significant distress or impairment in occupational functioning, social functioning, and other areas of life. According to the DSM-V, a transsexual is someone who desires to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by the wish to make his or her body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatment, the transsexual identity has been present for at least two years, and the disorder is not a symptom of another mental disorder or a chromosomal abnormality.

	  

41

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 55
185. Symptoms of gender dysphoria can be extremely painful. They can include extreme emotional discomfort, a desire to hide or be rid of physical signs of the biological sex, and a strong dislike for and desire to change the genitalia of the biological sex.
186. Gender dysphoria constitutes a serious medical need. 187. Appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria includes, but is not limited to:
a. Mental health support; b. Hormone treatment; c. Dress of preferred gender role; d. Grooming supplies of preferred gender role; e. Hygiene supplies of preferred gender role; f. Use of name and pronouns of preferred gender role; g. Opportunities to behave in preferred gender role; h. Language and speech therapy; i. Hair removal treatments or devices; j. Peer support groups; and k. Sex reassignment therapy or surgery. 188. Additionally, in the prison or jail context, treatment for gender dysphoria includes, but is not limited to: a. Freedom from retaliation and harassment by prison or jail staff and other
inmates; b. Housing with other LGBT inmates, or inmates of the same preferred gender;

	  

42

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 55

c. Separate housing, or at a minimum separate bathroom and shower facilities, from other inmates, if the inmate is housed in a facility of those with the same biological sex;
d. Pat and strip searches conducted by a staff member of the gender of the inmate’s choice;
e. Confidentiality of the inmate’s sexual orientation; f. Availability of LGBT literature and resources; g. Staff training regarding transgender inmates; and h. Protective custody. 189. Gender dysphoria constitutes a serious medical and mental health need. H. The BOP’s Failure to Timely Evaluate Ms. Hill And Provide Treatment Based Upon A Diagnosis of Her Gender Dysphoria 190. As early as 2005, Ms. Hill’s prison psychologists recognized her gender identity issues, reporting in her file that Ms. Hill “continues to very appropriately discuss relevant gender identity and sexuality issues, as they relate to his functioning here, and more significantly to his transition to community and desire for healthy relationships. He more clearly vocalizes his overt identification with females and wish to more fully express himself in this manner post-release.” (Ex. 2 at SHILL00285.) 191. Despite the obvious need for an evaluation of Ms. Hill’s claim that she identified as a woman and therefore had gender dysphoria, the BOP failed to provide a formal evaluation of Ms. Hill’s condition in 2005. Indeed, no evaluation whatsoever was performed until 2012. 192. The BOP’s medical records for Ms. Hill suggest a diagnosis in September 2012 and indicate another formal evaluation diagnosing Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria in November 2013.

	  

43

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 55
193. Despite the 2012 and 2013 diagnoses, the BOP and its personnel have repeatedly asserted that additional evaluations were necessary to confirm Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria diagnosis before treatment can be provided.
194. The BOP has failed to timely perform these additional evaluations, and has not performed the necessary medical consultation to confirm that hormone therapy was an appropriate treatment, despite repeatedly recognizing that such a medical evaluation was the requisite next step in Ms. Hill’s medical treatment.
195. The BOP’s records, however, confirm that Ms. Hill was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and treatment should have been provided long ago to alleviate the severe distress she feels at being a woman in a man’s body.
196. According to Ms. Hill’s medical records, BOP doctor Rashid Khan diagnosed Ms. Hill as having gender dysphoria on September 20, 2012. (Ex. 8 (Clinical Records) at SHILL00329-333.)
197. In May 2013, Ms. Hill informed her doctors that she was “very distressed to have male anatomy” and “was requesting assistance in working towards transition.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000361.) Ms. Hill also expressed her ideation about self-mutilation to remove her male anatomy. (Id.) The attending physician responded that he was unaware of the guidelines for treating inmates with gender dysphoria, and provided no treatment. (Id.)
198. Dr. Mitchell of USP-Allenwood reported that he had begun to discuss with Ms. Hill a “possible start to GID treatment procedures” as early as May 22, 2013, thus indicating that Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria already had been diagnosed, but no formal medical evaluation or treatment was provided. (Ex. 8 at BOP000503.)

	  

44

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 55

199. Dr. Mitchell further reported in June and July 2013 that Ms. Hill “is a genderidentity disordered inmate who appears outwardly effeminate and has the gender identity of a female,” is “outwardly effeminate and has Gender Identity Disorder. . .” (Ex. 2 at BOP000499.) Again, no formal medical evaluation or treatment was provided at that time.
200. In July 2013, psychology staff recognized Ms. Hill as “a gender-identity disordered inmate who appears outwardly effeminate and has the gender identity of a female,” and that she expressed a desire to pursue hormone therapy. (Ex. 2 at BOP000480.) Again, no formal medical evaluation or treatment was provided at that time.
201. In August 2013, Ms. Hill informed the USP-Terre Haute psychologist that she was seeking a transfer to a lower security facility based on her transgender issues and history of sexual assault. (Ex. 2 at BOP000489.) Ms. Hill also requested materials on transgender issues and asked about possibility of hormone therapy. (Id.)
202. No additional evaluation of Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria was performed until November 2013, however. (Ex. 2 at BOP000474-484.)
203. The psychologist performing that evaluation noted that no treatment for Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria could commence until Ms. Hill also had an evaluation by a medical professional. (Ex. 2 at BOP000483.)
204. On November 5, 2013, staff psychologist Ericka N. Schmitt at Terre Haute FCI reported in her clinical notes that she discussed with Ms. Hill her diagnosis of gender identity disorder, and informed Ms. Hill that a treatment plan would be created. (Ex. 2 at BOP000473. No treatment plan was created, however.
205. In November 2013, upon her transfer from USP-Terre Haute to FCI-Butner, Ms. Hill informed the staff psychologist, Jill R. Haughawout, that she had been diagnosed with

	  

45

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 55

gender identity disorder while at USP-Terre Haute and had been sent to Butner for hormone therapy. (Ex. 2 at BOP000467.) The staff at FCI-Butner did not accept that a diagnosis already had been performed, or provide any hormone therapy.
206. Instead, in January 2014, Ms. Hill’s doctors at FCI-Butner noted that her gender identity disorder evaluation was “in progress,” even though her records diagnosed gender dysphoria in September 2012, and an evaluation formally confirmed the diagnosis in November 2013. (Ex. 8 at BOP000087-89 at 87.)
207. On January 5, 2014, BOP psychology staff again formally diagnosed Ms. Hill with gender dysphoria. (Ex. 2 at BOP000232-241.)
208. BOP psychology staff, doctors, and other personnel repeatedly confirmed this diagnosis throughout 2014.
209. By May 2014, Ms. Hill still had not received any hormone therapy for her gender dysphoria – nor any supplemental medical evaluations that the BOP claims are a predicate to treatment – and expressed concern to her doctors that she might never get treatment. (Ex. 8 at BOP000023).) Indeed, the fear of not receiving treatment was so dire for Ms. Hill that she expressed a desire to castrate herself because “it ([her] penis and scrotum) shouldn’t be there.” (Id.) Despite the severity of Ms. Hill’s distress relating to her gender dysphoria, she has not yet received treatment.
210. Though Ms. Hill’s medical records confirm a diagnosis of gender dysphoria as early as 2012, and again on January 5, 2014, on May 5, 2014, Ms. Hill’s doctors noted that her gender dysphoria diagnosis needed to be confirmed before “efforts will be made to transfer patient to an institution that is close to an Endocrinologist with experience in Trans-Health Care.” (Ex. 8 at BOP000028.)

	  

46

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 55

211. Ms. Hill’s doctors have recognized that “Inmate Hill is a candidate for hormone treatment. . .” (Ex. 8 at BOP00007-08.)
212. As of June 20, 2014, Ms. Hill’s doctors recognized that “[t]here does not seem to be any disagreement with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria for this inmate.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000009-11 at 10.) Her doctors noted that “transfer to a facility with an endocrinologist nearby who has experience with transgender patients is recommended.” (Id.)
213. Despite the uniformity of the BOP’s medical opinions regarding the need for treatment of Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria and the propriety of hormone therapy, and even though she was purportedly transferred to FCI-Butner to receive treatment, Ms. Hill still has not received any treatment for her gender dysphoria.
214. Ms. Hill has specifically requested the following treatment for her gender dysphoria:
a. To be provided hormone therapy; b. To have sexual reassignment surgery; c. To be free from retaliation and harassment by BOP staff and other inmates; d. To be referred to using her female name, Samantha, and feminine pronouns; e. To be provided female clothing, undergarments, hygiene and grooming
products, and any cosmetic products as may be allowed for her custody level; f. Separate bathrooms and shower facilities where males are not present; g. Housing with females or other LGBT inmates; h. To be free from sexual and physical assault by other inmates; i. Pat and strip searches to be conducted by a staff member of the gender of Ms.
Hill’s choice;

	  

47

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 55

j. Confidentiality of Ms. Hill’s sexual orientation;
k. LGBT literature and resources;
l. Medical and mental health care appropriate to Ms. Hill’s sexual orientation
and history of rape in custody;
m. Staff training regarding transgender inmates; and
n. Protective custody.
215. BOP policy provides that inmates who have gender dysphoria will receive
treatment, or will at least be evaluated to determine the appropriateness of treatment.
216. Specifically, BOP policy requires that:
[I]nmates who assert they have [gender dysphoria]2 will receive thorough medical and mental health evaluations from medical professionals with basic competence in the assessment of the DSM [V] sexual disorders and who have participated in BOP’s [gender dysphoria] training… The evaluation will include an assessment of the inmate’s treatment and life experiences prior to incarceration (including hormone therapy, completed or in-process surgical interventions, real life experience consistent with the inmate’s gender identity, private expressions that conform to the preferred gender, and counseling). If a diagnosis of [gender dsyphoria] is reached, a proposed treatment plan will be developed which promotes the physical and mental stability of the patient. The development of the treatment plan is not solely dependent on services provided or the inmate’s life experiences prior to incarceration. The treatment plan may include elements or services that were, or were not, provided prior to incarceration, including, but not limited to: those elements of the real life experience consistent with the prison environment, hormone therapy and counseling. Treatment plans will be reviewed regularly and updated as necessary.
Current, accepted standards of care will be used as a reference for developing the treatment plan. All appropriate treatment options prescribed for inmates with [gender dysphoria] in currently accepted standards of care will be taken into consideration during evaluation by the appropriate medical and mental health care staff. Each treatment plan or denial of treatment must be reviewed by the Medical Director or BOP Chief Psychiatrist. Hormone therapy must be requested through
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	    2 In 2013, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was updated from version IV to version V. A significant change in version V is the renaming of what was previously termed gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria. As the relevant BOP policy was written before this update, it refers to gender identity disorder. 	  

	  

48

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 55
the non-formulary review process, and approved by the Medical Director and/or BOP Chief Psychiatrist. In summary, inmates in the custody of the Bureau with a possible diagnosis of [gender dysphoria] will receive a current individualized assessment and evaluation. Treatment options will not be precluded solely due to level of services received, or lack of services, prior to incarceration. (Ex. 9 (Memorandum for Chief Executive Officers dated May 31, 2011).) 217. The BOP has failed to provide any treatment whatsoever, and certainly adequate treatment, for Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria. 218. The BOP has failed to permanently assign Ms. Hill to a facility where she will obtain adequate medical and mental health treatment, including safe housing, for her gender dysphoria. 219. Additionally, PREA requires that the BOP, among other things:
a. Develop and maintain a zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse; b. Screen inmates for risk of being sexually abused or sexually abusive, and use
screening information to inform housing, bed, work education, and program assignments; c. Educate and train employees on their responsibilities in preventing, recognizing and responding to sexual abuse; d. Ban cross-gender pat-down searches of female inmates in prisons and jails; e. Enable inmates to shower, perform bodily functions and changes clothing without improper viewing by staff of the opposite gender; f. Require adequate levels of staffing to protect vulnerable inmates; g. Provide adequate medical and mental health care; and

	  

49

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 55
h. Adequately investigate all reports of sexual and physical abuse and sufficient and safe means for prisoners to report abuse.
220. The BOP has failed to comply with PREA requirements pertaining to gender dysphoria treatment.
221. The BOP’s failure to treat Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious medical and mental health need.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Protect – All Defendants) 222. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 223. As set forth herein, each of the Individual Capacity Defendants was aware that Ms. Hill was at a heightened risk of sexual predation based on her diminutive stature, her effeminate appearance, her history of sexual assault, and her sexual orientation. 224. Each of the Individual Capacity Defendants was expressly and personally informed of the substantial risk to Ms. Hill’s safety, but failed to respond reasonably to that risk and ensure that she was housed in safe conditions. 225. Each of the Individual Capacity Defendants deliberately, willfully, wantonly, callously, and recklessly disregarded the substantial risk that Ms. Hill would be sexually assaulted while housed at USP-Florence, causing her to be raped by her cellmate on December 17, 2011. 226. Defendant BOP continues to deliberately disregard the substantial risk of serious harm posed to Ms. Hill’s safety by failing to provide safe housing for her and ensure her safety wherever she is housed in the BOP.

	  

50

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 55

227. Defendants’ failure to protect Ms. Hill from a substantial risk of serious harm constitutes a violation of her right against cruel and unusual punishment protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Deliberate Indifference to Rape Trauma Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -
Defendants Carter, Severn, and BOP) 228. Defendants Carter and Severn failed to provide Ms. Hill adequate mental health care pertaining to her RTS and PTSD while she was housed at USP-Florence. 229. Defendants Carter and Severn each were repeatedly directly informed of Ms. Hill’s symptoms and diagnoses of RTS and PTSD, and acknowledged that those medical issues required treatment, but failed to timely and appropriately provide treatment by denying her access to treatment while in protective custody, the SHU, or otherwise outside the general population, despite knowing that Ms. Hill would be at greater risk of further physical and sexual assault in general population. 230. Defendants Carter and Severn acted with deliberate indifference to Ms. Hill’s serious medical and mental health needs while she was at USP-Florence. 231. Defendants Carter and Severn willfully, wantonly, callously, and recklessly disregarded Ms. Hill’s serious medical and mental health needs while she was housed at USPFlorence. 232. Defendant BOP continues to deliberately disregard Ms. Hill’s serious medical and mental health needs pertaining to her RTS and PTSD. 233. Defendants Carter, Severn, and BOP’s failure to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment to Ms. Hill constitutes a violation of her right against cruel and unusual punishment protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

	  

51

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 55

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Deliberate Indifference to Gender Dysphoria - Defendant BOP) 234. Defendant BOP, on an ongoing basis, has failed to provide Ms. Hill adequate medical and mental health care pertaining to her gender dysphoria. 235. Defendant BOP, on an ongoing basis, has acted with deliberate indifference to Ms. Hill’s serious medical and mental health needs. 236. Defendant BOP’s failure to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment to Ms. Hill constitutes a violation of her right against cruel and unusual punishment protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants for: (a) Nominal and compensatory damages to compensate her for her physical injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress suffered as a result of the Individual Capacity Defendants’ failure to protect her and Defendants Carter and Severn’s failure to provide adequate mental health treatment; (b) Punitive damages in a sum as to deter the Individual Capacity Defendants from conduct of this nature in the future; (c) An injunction directing that the BOP implement such measures as are necessary to ensure Ms. Hill is safely housed within the BOP. At a minimum, Ms. Hill shall be afforded:
a. A centralized protective custody designation not subject to removal; b. Housing with other LGBT inmates and separation from male inmates; c. Removal from SHU and cessation of social isolation; d. Access to programming and rehabilitative services commensurate with the
access afforded other inmates of Ms. Hill’s custody level; and

	  

52

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 55

e. Housing in a facility where staff have been appropriately trained in custody matters pertaining to LGBT inmates.
(d) An injunction prohibiting the BOP from housing Ms. Hill at a male USP. (e) An injunction directing that the BOP provide Ms. Hill with consistent, continuous, appropriate, and adequate medical and mental health treatment for her PTSD, RTS, and gender dysphoria. At a minimum, that treatment shall include:
a. Freedom from retaliation and harassment by BOP staff and other inmates; b. Reference using her female name, Samantha, and feminine pronouns; c. Female clothing, undergarments, hygiene and grooming products, and any
cosmetic products as may be allowed for her custody level; d. Separate bathrooms and shower facilities where males are not present; e. Hormone therapy; f. Housing with females or other LGBT inmates; g. Freedom from sexual and physical assault by other inmates; h. Pat and strip searches to be conducted by a staff member of the gender of Ms.
Hill’s choice; i. Confidentiality of Ms. Hill’s sexual orientation; j. LGBT literature and resources; k. Medical and mental health care appropriate to Ms. Hill’s sexual orientation
and history of rape in custody; l. Staff training regarding transgender inmates; m. Protective custody; and n. Sex reassignment surgery;

	  

53

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 55

(f) A declaration that Defendants’ conduct, as set forth in this Amended Complaint,

violated and continues to violate Ms. Hill’s rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United

States Constitution;

(g) An award of attorneys’ fees and costs;

(h) Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DATED this 25th day of September, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

BRYAN CAVE LLP

s/ Sarah Hartley Stephen D. Gurr Sarah Hartley 1700 Lincoln Street Suite 4100 Denver, CO 80203 T: 303-861-7000 F: 303-866-0200 E: steve.gurr@bryancave.com
Sarah.hartley@bryancave.com 	  
COLORADO PRISON LAW PROJECT

s/ Elisabeth L. Owen

Elisabeth L. Owen

1515 Wynkoop Street

Suite 360

Denver, CO 80202

T: 720-389-9145

F: 720-763-9609

E: lisi@coloradoprisonlawproject.org

	  

	  

	  

54

Case 1:13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW Document 57 Filed 09/25/14 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 55
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 25, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:
• Amy	  L.	  Padden	   amy.padden@usdoj.gov;	  mary.leistikow@usdoj.gov;	  USACO.ECFCivil@usdoj.gov	  	   Counsel for Defendants
• Stephen	  D.	  Gurr;	  Sarah	  Hartley	   steve.gurr@bryancave.com;	  sarah.hartley@bryancave.com	  	   Co-­‐Counsel	  for	  Plaintiff	  
s/ Elisabeth L. Owen Elisabeth L. Owen
	  

	  

55

 
 CCaassee11:1:133-c-cvv-0-033440044-M-MSSKK-N-NYYWW DDooccuummeennt t8869-1 FFileiledd0065/0/219/1/155 UUSSDDCCCCoololoraraddoo PPaaggee11oof f4499
Exhibit	  1—Proposed	  Second	  Amended	  Complaint	  
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03404-MSK-BNB SCOTT HILL a/k/a SAMANTHA HILL
Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, a United States agency,
Defendants.

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

	  

PLAINTIFF Scott Hill a/k/a Samantha Hill (“Ms. Hill”), by and through undersigned

counsel, hereby submits this Amended Complaint and Jury Demand alleging violations of her

rights protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Ms. Hill is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP”). Ms.

Hill is anatomically male, but identifies as female, and has done so since a very young age. She

prefers to dress and groom as a female and requests that others treat her as a female. Because Ms.

Hill is anatomically male, the BOP houses Ms. Hill in all-male prisons. As a result of her

effeminate appearance and presentation, her diminutive stature, her sexual orientation and gender

identification, and knowledge among the prison population she has participated in investigations

into the physical and sexual assaults against her, Ms. Hill is at a heightened risk of predation by

other inmates. Her personal status alone – irrespective of the characteristics of her cellmate –

puts her at heightened risk while incarcerated, as evidenced by her history of repeated sexual

victimization while imprisoned.

	  

1

CCaassee11:1:133-c-cvv-0-033440044-M-MSSKK-N-NYYWW DDooccuummeennt t8869-1 FFileiledd0065/0/219/1/155 UUSSDDCCCCoololoraraddoo PPaaggee22oof f4499

Though it is obvious that Ms. Hill is viewed as “prey” in the prison environment, and though various BOP personnel have acknowledged Ms. Hill’s heightened risk of predation and included concerns regarding her risk level in her BOP Central File for all BOP personnel to see, the BOP has housed Ms. Hill in some of the BOP’s most notoriously dangerous high-security institutions. These institutions are unsafe for a transgendered prisoner like Ms. Hill, and Ms. Hill has routinely been housed with cellmates who have not been verified as “safe” to cohabitate with her. Ms. Hill has been assaulted or raped numerous times since she has been in the custody of the BOP. She lives in constant fear of assault if she leaves protective custody, which she has requested repeatedly to ensure her safety. Despite her frequent pleas to the BOP for placement in a single cell or in a facility where she is not facing the risk of assault, and despite her exhaustion of administrative remedies to put all levels of the BOP on notice of her serious concerns regarding her personal safety, the BOP continues to house Ms. Hill in penitentiaries with violent criminals who target her as “prey,” and with cellmates. Despite the BOP’s awareness of the heightened risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety, it has failed to protect her from actual and ongoing substantial risks of serious harm. Ms. Hill seeks injunctive and prospective relief from the BOP for its confirmed failure to provide Ms. Hill with consistent and permanent safe housing.
In particular, the BOP housed Ms. Hill at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado (“USP-Florence”), one of the BOP’s most violent and dangerous high-security institutions. The BOP transferred Ms. Hill there in December 2010, knowing it was unsafe based on the well-documented history of sexual assault against Ms. Hill at similarly violent and dangerous institutions. Upon her arrival to USP-Florence, Ms. Hill informed USP-Florence staff in her intake screening interview that she had recently been sexually assaulted, was a “CIM case” (i.e., had been designated for Central Inmate Monitoring and thus should have received

	  

2

CCaassee11:1:133-c-cvv-0-033440044-M-MSSKK-N-NYYWW DDooccuummeennt t8869-1 FFileiledd0065/0/219/1/155 UUSSDDCCCCoololoraraddoo PPaaggee33oof f4499

heightened review upon arrival), and should not be placed in the general population. She expressly informed various USP-Florence officials of her prior history of victimization and her ongoing fear of assault and of retaliation for her participation in an investigation regarding a prior assault, for which she had been labeled as a “snitch.” Even though these officials knew of the inherent risk in housing Ms. Hill in a dangerous environment, they housed Ms. Hill in the Special Housing Unit (the “SHU”) with a cellmate, despite her repeated requests to be singlecelled and her administrative appeals of the decision to require her to be housed with a cellmate.
During the period from her transfer to USP-Florence until the date of her rape by her cellmate, Ms. Hill repeatedly notified USP-Florence staff of her fears of being targeted based on her sexual orientation, effeminate appearance, and history of assault, and pled for a safe housing assignment. Ms. Hill’s warnings notwithstanding—and despite the severity of the claims of repeated sexual assault and rape in her Central File, USP-Florence officials did nothing to protect her from the cellmate who eventually violently sexually assaulted her on December 17, 2011. As a consequence of the sexual assault, Ms. Hill suffered physical injuries and severe emotional distress. Ms. Hill therefore seeks damages from the United States of America for its failure to protect Ms. Hill from the violent sexual assault she suffered on its watch.
Additionally, Ms. Hill also seeks monetary relief from the United States, and injunctive relief from the BOP, for their failure to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment to Ms. Hill for her Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Rape Trauma Syndrome, both leading up to and following the December 17, 2011 rape. BOP psychology staff were repeatedly informed of Ms. Hill’s trauma, fears, anxiety, and stress resulting from her repeated sexual victimization, and of her diagnoses of PTSD and RTS. Those staff’s reports detail Ms. Hill’s fragile mental state, acknowledge her need for treatment, and set forth the nominal and oftentimes delayed treatment

	  

3

CCaassee11:1:133-c-cvv-0-033440044-M-MSSKK-N-NYYWW DDooccuummeennt t8869-1 FFileiledd0065/0/219/1/155 UUSSDDCCCCoololoraraddoo PPaaggee44oof f4499
actually provided. Despite acknowledging her PTSD and RTS, BOP psychology staff refused Ms. Hill adequate counseling and treatment and have failed to provide treatment as mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act and relevant community standards of care. The BOP has continued to fail to provide adequate PTSD and RTS treatment in violation of Ms. Hill’s rights protected by the Eighth Amendment.
Ms. Hill finally seeks injunctive relief against the BOP that would require it to properly treat Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria, for which she has repeatedly requested medical and mental health treatment. Until recently, the BOP had failed even to evaluate Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria, let alone provide any treatment, despite recognizing and documenting her gender identity issues as early as 2005. In 2012, the BOP finally performed an evaluation, and recently informed Ms. Hill that she would be transferred to a medical facility for treatment. As of now, Ms. Hill has not yet been transferred to a medical facility as promised. Moreover, the nature, duration, and adequacy of the treatment to be provided is unknown, and any voluntary provision of treatment and safe housing could be subject to cessation at any time. Injunctive relief is required to ensure Ms. Hill receives adequate treatment for her gender dysphoria in light of the BOP’s practice of regularly and unpredictably moving inmates between correctional institutions and past failure to provide necessary treatment.
Defendants’ acts and omission described herein constitute gross violations of Ms. Hill’s rights protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and have caused and continue to cause Ms. Hill severe physical and emotional suffering. Accordingly, Ms. Hill respectfully requests that the Court grant her the relief requested herein and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

	  

4

CCaassee11:1:133-c-cvv-0-033440044-M-MSSKK-N-NYYWW DDooccuummeennt t8869-1 FFileiledd0065/0/219/1/155 UUSSDDCCCCoololoraraddoo PPaaggee55oof f4499

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4), 1346, 2201, and 2202, and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671, et seq. (“FTCA”). Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies. 2. This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants, as set forth in this Amended Complaint. 3. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as all Defendants reside here and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred here.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Samantha Hill is a federal prisoner in the custody of the BOP. Ms. Hill is transgender; she is anatomically male, but identifies as female. Ms. Hill is of Native American descent, and in that tradition identifies as a “Two Spirit.” The BOP identifies Ms. Hill as Scott Hill, Inmate Register Number 22297-038. Ms. Hill is presently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina (“FCI-Butner”). 5. Defendant United States is a sovereign country, the federal government of which is responsible for ensuring the health, safety, and welfare of its citizenry. All of the federal employees identified below were acting within the scope of their federal employment at the time of the actions at issue in this case. 6. Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons is a federal agency charged with holding in its custody persons who have been convicted of violating the laws of the United States and sentenced to a period of incarceration. The BOP is also charged with establishing policies and regulations of the federal prison system and ensuring the safety of prisoners in its custody. As set

	  

5

CCaassee11:1:133-c-cvv-0-033440044-M-MSSKK-N-NYYWW DDooccuummeennt t8869-1 FFileiledd0065/0/219/1/155 UUSSDDCCCCoololoraraddoo PPaaggee66oof f4499
forth herein, the BOP has continuously failed to protect Ms. Hill from a substantial risk of serious harm and to provide Ms. Hill with adequate medical and mental healthcare. The BOP is sued in its official capacity.

	  

6

CCaassee11:1:133-c-cvv-0-033440044-M-MSSKK-N-NYYWW DDooccuummeennt t8869-1 FFileiledd0065/0/219/1/155 UUSSDDCCCCoololoraraddoo PPaaggee77oof f4499

TIMELINE OF TRAUMATIC EVENTS

DATE March 13-18, 2001
2002 March 26, 2003
April 4, 2009
2010 June 10, 2010
October 18, 2010 to October 28, 2010
December 17, 2011 May 21, 2012 2013 September 11, 2014

LOCATION
United States Penitentiary, Lewisberg
United States Penitentiary, Allenwood United States Penitentiary, Allenwood
United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute
United States Penitentiary, Coleman II United States Penitentiary, Coleman II
United States Penitentiary, Victorville
United States Penitentiary, Florence United States Penitentiary, Tucson United States Penitentiary, Coleman II FCI Butner

NATURE OF INCIDENT
• Ms. Hill is raped while in protective custody by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder following the incident
• Ms. Hill is physically assaulted by another inmate while in protective custody
• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is assaulted by two other inmates with a five pound rock and a knife
• As a result of the assault, Ms. Hill receives 15 staples to her head and two stitches to her face
• Ms. Hill is again diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is repeatedly and violently sexually assaulted over the course of a ten-day period by her cellmate, a Latin Kings gang member
• Ms. Hill is again diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic without Delayed Onset
• Ms. Hill is, predictably and preventably, violently raped by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is physically assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill is sexually assaulted by her cellmate
• Ms. Hill suffers an attempted sexual assault in the shower.

	  

7

CCaassee11:1:133-c-cvv-0-033440044-M-MSSKK-N-NYYWW DDooccuummeennt t8869-1 FFileiledd0065/0/219/1/155 UUSSDDCCCCoololoraraddoo PPaaggee88oof f4499

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. Ms. Hill’s High Risk For Predation From Other Inmates 7. Prisons, including the BOP prisons where Ms. Hill has been housed, are highly predatory environments. There is a strict hierarchy within any prison system. Prisoners at the bottom of the hierarchy are perceived as weak and vulnerable, and as a result are relentlessly preyed upon by others. 8. Prisoners who appear feminine or physically weak, who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (“LGBT”), who have a known history of being preyed upon, and who have cooperated with law enforcement or “snitched” are considered to be at the bottom of the hierarchy and are therefore at a heightened risk of attack by other prisoners. 9. Ms. Hill is transgender,1 or a Two Spirit in the Native American tradition. Although Ms. Hill is physically a male, she identifies as a female. She strives to achieve a feminine appearance and to be recognized as a female by others. She is also has a naturally slight build, standing approximately five feet, five inches tall. She wears her hair long, wears make-up, and dresses as a female whenever possible. She requests that others refer to her using feminine pronouns. Ms. Hill has identified as female almost her entire life. 10. Because of her physical appearance, sexual orientation, history of sexual assault, and cooperation with law enforcement in reporting her history of sexual assault, Ms. Hill is at a very high risk of attack by other prisoners within the BOP. 11. The risk to Ms. Hill’s safety in a prison environment is obvious as a result of her appearance alone.

	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	    1 According to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (“GLAAD”), “‘transgender’ is
an umbrella term often used to refer to people whose gender identify differs from their assigned
sex at birth.”	  

	  

8

CCaassee11:1:133-c-cvv-0-033440044-M-MSSKK-N-NYYWW DDooccuummeennt t8869-1 FFileiledd0065/0/219/1/155 UUSSDDCCCCoololoraraddoo PPaaggee99oof f4499

12. Ms. Hill has a long history of being sexually assaulted in the prison system. At a minimum, she was sexually assaulted at least eight times at five different United States Penitentiaries (“USPs”). She has endured additional physical assaults at many of the facilities where she has been housed, and, whenever she is housed at a USP, she receives frequent threats of sexual and physical assault.
13. Because Ms. Hill routinely reports these physical and sexual assaults to BOP officials, she has been identified by other prisoners as a snitch—someone who tells on other prisoners.
14. Even though Ms. Hill identifies and presents as female, she has always been housed in all-male prisons by the BOP because of her anatomy. The BOP has classified Ms. Hill to its highest custody level and routinely houses her in its highest security facilities, USPs. In fact, Ms. Hill has spent the vast majority of her incarceration in some of the BOP’s most violent USPs, including USP-Florence.
15. Because USPs are the most violent and dangerous of all federal prisons, the risk to a prisoner like Ms. Hill is significantly heightened when housed in a USP as opposed to a lower security prison, such as a Federal Correctional Institution “FCI,” a medium security BOP facility.
16. Nonetheless, Ms. Hill is still not safe, even when she is housed in FCIs. Because of Ms. Hill’s sexual orientation, she has often been forced to “check-in” at some of the FCIs at which she has been housed by voluntarily admitting herself to the SHU to prevent attacks from prisoners in the general population.
17. The USPs at which Ms. Hill has been physically or sexually assaulted are some of the BOPs most notoriously dangerous institutions.

	  

9

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag1e01o0f 4o9f 49
18. The risk to Ms. Hill’s safety is well-documented in her BOP records, which are replete with reports of the unwanted sexual propositioning and threats she received, in addition to the repeated assaults she suffered.
19. For example, the first page of Ms. Hill’s central file contains a large-print singlepage document that reads: “NOT TO BE TRANSFERRED OR PARTICIPATE IN COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES WITHOUT CMC CLEARANCE. SEE PROGRAM STATEMENT TITLED ‘CENTRAL INMATE MONITORING SYSTEM’.” (Ex. 1 (Notice).)
20. Numerous BOP personnel have acknowledged that Ms. Hill is at an inherent and obvious heightened risk of predation because of her sexual orientation, effeminate appearance, and history of physical and sexual assault.
21. For example, on July 18, 2002, USP-Allenwood Chief Psychologist John R. Mitchell, Psy.D. (“Dr. Mitchell”) advised other BOP officials that “[i]t must be emphasized how inappropriate inmate Hill is to remain at a penitentiary environment. [She] was unable to make it here for even three days without encountering pressure for sex from predatory inmates and requiring protective custody.” (Ex. 2 (Psychology Records) at SHILL00101 (emphasis added).)
22. Dr. Mitchell also noted in Ms. Hill’s telepsychiatry clinic and mental health evaluation, dated July 17, 2002, that Ms. Hill was “considered a high risk for being preyed upon by other inmates.” (Id. at SHILL00102 (emphasis added).)
23. In a February 10, 2003 Transfer Summary for Ms. Hill, Clinical Psychologist Georgina L. Ashlock, Ph.D. (U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri) noted that Ms. Hill “is in a predicament, in that [s]he requires protection from other inmates . . . [sh]e is at high risk of being sexually assaulted given [her] small size, youthful appearance,

	  

10

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag1e11o1f 4o9f 49
feminine mannerisms, and homosexual orientation.” Ms. Hill’s propensity for acting feminine, flirtatious, and provocative “contributes to [her] own victimization . . .” (Ex. 3 (Transfer Summary) at 4.) Accordingly, Dr. Ashlock recommended that she have “secure housing to protect [her] from other inmates . . .” because “M[s]. Hill is also at high risk of being sexually assaulted even without [her] provocative and inappropriate behavior because of [her] appearance, stature, and sexual orientation.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
24. In July 2003, Dr. Mitchell again recognized the safety risk to Ms. Hill, noting that “[Ms. Hill] has evidenced poor adjustment to BOP facilities throughout [her] incarceration, primarily due to [her] small physical stature, effeminate appearance, and homosexual background.” (Ex. 4 (Transfer Recommendation dated July 7, 2003).)
25. When treating Ms. Hill, Dr. Mitchell repeatedly alerted other BOP staff to Ms. Hill’s high risk for predation from other inmates through direct communications and notes in Ms. Hill’s psychology records.
26. Virtually every time Ms. Hill has been transferred to a new facility, her history of sexual victimization and the danger posed to her by being housed around other prisoners has been documented.
27. After ten years of repeated victimization without protection at USPs around the country, Ms. Hill was transferred back to USP-Allenwood in May 2013, and Dr. Mitchell again noted that “[i]t will be important for staff to be aware of how high a risk for victimization inmate Hill is.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000507-08 (emphasis added).)
28. Upon arrival to USP-Allenwood, BOP staff attempted to force Ms. Hill into general population. Dr. Mitchell quickly assisted Ms. Hill in obtaining a protective custody assignment in the SHU, however, to help insure Ms. Hill’s safety.

	  

11

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag1e21o2f 4o9f 49
29. In June 2013, Dr. Mitchell noted that Ms. “Hill is an inmate with a high risk of sexual victimization. [She] was on the compound for only a few days and ultimately had to request protective custody due to inmates pressuring [her] to not be on the compound. The primary concern I have for Hill remains [her] vulnerability for being sexually assaulted and sexually harassed.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000501.) Dr. Mitchell further recognized that Ms. Hill adapts successfully to medium-security prisons, and that such placements would “definitely reduce [her] PREA-related vulnerabilities rather than continuing to rotate [her] through various USP’s.” (Id.)
30. Dr. Mitchell also acknowledged that Ms. Hill’s high risk of victimization justified single-celling. (Ex. 2 at BOP000502.)
31. Also in June 2013, a BOP staff person acknowledged the causal relationship between Ms. Hill’s characteristics, identity, and history of assault to her repeated experience of sexual assault in the BOP. In responding to a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for Ms. Hill’s complete central, medical, and mental health files made, a BOP employee stated, “I wanted to give you a head’s up that there is a lot of information in those documents regarding [her] sexual preference…definitely this file’s very sensitive, there’s a lot of sensitive issues, so not sure if these paperworks are getting back to [her] or not, but…if so please use caution because [she], you know, [she’s] had…several cases of being assaulted…in prison due to things like that.”
32. In July 2013, Ms. Hill was transferred from USP-Allenwood to USP-Terre Haute—another prison at which she has a history of being assaulted. During a Risk of Sexual Victimization consultation upon Ms. Hill’s transfer to USP-Terre Haute, the psychology staff reported that Ms. Hill “may be at higher risk of sexual victimization than other inmates.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000494 (emphasis added).)

	  

12

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag1e31o3f 4o9f 49
33. During her transfer from USP-Allenwood to USP-Terre Haute, Dr. Mitchell reported on July 8, 2013, in a Recommendation for Management Variable to refer Ms. Hill to a lower-level security facility, that Ms. Hill “is a gender-identity disordered inmate who appears outwardly effeminate and has the gender identity of a female. As such, [she] is at high risk for sexual victimization from predatory inmates” and that “[p]redatory inmates who are likely to prey on inmate Hill are at greater numbers in high-security penitentiaries.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000499.) Dr. Mitchell also acknowledged that Ms. Hill “has shown a pattern of not being able to safely exist in general population at USP high-security settings due to [her] high risk of victimization. . . and it is anticipated that this pattern would continue if [s]he is transferred to another USP.” (Id. (emphasis added).) Dr. Mitchell further recognized that “[c]ontinued placement at USP facilities would represent an increased risk for Hill to be subject to further episodes of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault,” and noted that even at USPTucson, a supposedly safe USP, Ms. Hill was not safe and had to be placed in protective custody. (Id.)
34. Dr. Mitchell concluded that “it is believed Hill will be safest at a medium-security facility and that continued placement at USP facilities would only ensure that inmate Hill remains a long-term protective custody case who languishes in SHU settings due to the safety risks that would befall [her] if in a general population setting at a USP.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
35. In November 2013, BOP staff recognized the elevated risk posed to Ms. Hill based on her sexuality. Ted. L. Wunderlich, staff psychologist at Oklahoma City FTC, where Ms. Hill was briefly housed, indicated that Ms. Hill “does appear to be at an elevated risk for

	  

13

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag1e41o4f 4o9f 49
victimization due to [her] self reported transgender status.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000468 (emphasis added).)
36. As recently as March 2014, BOP personnel have recognized that Ms. Hill “presents with a significantly increased risk for sexual victimization given [her] identification as transgendered, history of sexual victimization while incarcerated . . . , and [her] smaller physical stature.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000158 (emphasis added).)
37. The BOP also has, in the past, repeatedly acknowledged the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety by placing her on protective custody (“PC”) status, albeit temporarily.
38. PC is a classification status intended to provide additional protection to prisoners who are at a heightened risk of assault at the hands of other prisoners. While the protections afforded by PC status may vary, they can include assignment to a single cell (without a cellmate), directives to keep certain prisoners away from the prisoner on PC status, and directives that the prisoner be allowed to recreate, shower, and conduct other activities of daily life alone.
39. Even when on PC status, prisoners are not necessarily physically separated from prisoners who are not on PC status. On information and belief, there is no BOP facility that houses only prisoners on PC status.
40. In Ms. Hill’s case, placement on PC status has never afforded adequate protections from assault by other prisoners.
B. The Risk To Ms. Hill’s Safety While Housed At USP-Florence And Defendants’ Deliberate Indifference To This Risk
41. From approximately December 2010 to January 2012, Ms. Hill was housed at USP-Florence.

	  

14

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag1e51o5f 4o9f 49
42. The risk of predation by other inmates posed to Ms. Hill at USP-Florence was extraordinary and obvious.
43. Multiple BOP officials, ranging from line staff to executive managers, were aware that Ms. Hill was at a high risk of physical and/or sexual assault from other inmates in the USPFlorence SHU but failed to respond reasonably to that risk, which ultimately led to her rape on December 17, 2011. The United States’ knowledge, through BOP officials, of and failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety was not just negligent, but willful, wanton, callous, and reckless.
44. To begin with, the United States knew that immediately prior to her transfer to USP-Florence, Ms. Hill endured approximately ten days of sexual assault at the hands of her cellmate, a Latin Kings gang member, at the USP in Victorville, California (“USP-Victorville”) and that Ms. Hill was at a heightened risk for future sexual assaults as a result.
45. Ms. Hill reported the multiple rapes she had suffered to BOP officials and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) investigation was initiated. Ms. Hill was also placed on PC status as a result of the rapes.
46. After the rapes, Ms. Hill and her USP-Victorville assailant, Kenneth Lucez, were both transferred from the Victorville Correctional Complex (“VCC”) to other BOP facilities.
47. When BOP prisoners are transferred, they fly from their originating facility to the federal transfer center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (“FTC-Oklahoma”), and from FTCOklahoma, on to their destination facility.
48. Ms. Hill and Lucez were destined for different facilities after they left VCC, but were transferred from VCC to FTC-Oklahoma on the same plane.

	  

15

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag1e61o6f 4o9f 49
49. Also on the plane from VCC to FTC-Oklahoma were other Latin Kings gang members who were associated with Lucez. Some of these gang members were ultimately transferred to USP-Florence with Ms. Hill.
50. During the transfer process, Lucez identified Ms. Hill as a snitch to his associates because Ms. Hill had reported to BOP officials that he had raped her.
51. On trips to and from the bathroom on the plane, Lucez also threatened Ms. Hill’s life.
52. In her intake screening with Defendant Carter, Ms. Hill reported her history of sexual assault.
53. Ms. Hill additionally reported her history of sexual assault at USP-Victorville and fears of future assault to multiple USP-Florence officials, from whom Ms. Hill requested protective custody.
54. Recognizing the risk of predation and assault posed to Ms. Hill, the BOP initially placed Ms. Hill in a single cell (without a cellmate) and afforded other protections that prevented her from being assaulted by other prisoners. (Ex. 2 at SHILL00204 (noting that Ms. Hill “is currently housed solo on the SHU so [s]he is safe . . .”).)
55. On January 1, 2011, Ms. Hill sought an administrative remedy of being classified “single cell warranted” to protect her from future physical or sexual assaults, explaining that she had attempted to informally resolve her complaint by explaining her fears and concerns to the psychology department, the unit team, and Defendant Daniels, amongst others. Ms. Hill specifically notified the BOP and staff that she feared placing her with another inmate in protective custody, without evaluating the other inmate’s history of violence, physical assault, sexual assault, gang status, or other characteristics did not provide sufficient protection for a

	  

16

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag1e71o7f 4o9f 49
vulnerable non-violent inmate such as Ms. Hill, and that she was an “obvious target or ‘prey’ for both physical/sexual assault by others: based on [her] slight or youthful physical build, gay, feminine appearance, snitch (report rape), [and] prior state charge of sex offender.” BOP officials acknowledged receipt of and denied Ms. Hill’s request for administrative remedy.
56. Even though the threat to Ms. Hill’s safety was well-documented and obvious BOP officials concluded that there existed no verifiable threat to Ms. Hill’s safety on January 25, 2011.
57. As a consequence of these officials’ findings, other USP-Florence officials ordered that Ms. Hill’s PC status (that had been awarded at USP-Victorville) be removed and directed that Ms. Hill be housed with a cellmate in the USP-Florence SHU.
58. The USP-Florence SHU houses inmates who have committed disciplinary infractions and who are awaiting transfer to the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum (“ADX”), among other people. Accordingly, the pool of inmates from which Ms. Hill’s cellmate would be selected was, in general, particularly dangerous and disruptive segment of the USP-Florence inmate population.
59. After the BOP removed Ms. Hill’s PC status, creating and exacerbating a risk to her safety, Ms. Hill notified multiple BOP officials numerous times that she was at a risk of attack by other inmates.
60. For example, Ms. Hill filed a Request For Administrative Remedy on January 20, 2011, complaining that she feared for her safety because she was being forced to take a cellmate, and that once her current cellmate was released, she would be subject to predation again. (Ex. 5 (Request For Administrative Remedy, dated January 20, 2011).)

	  

17

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag1e81o8f 4o9f 49
61. Ms. Hill repeatedly requested that the BOP keep her in PC instead of mandating that she take a cellmate based on her fears of threats to her safety from being in the general population, but though the BOP was fully informed of the risks to Ms. Hill’s safety, its officials signed the denial of Ms. Hill’s request to remain in PC anyhow. (Id.)
62. BOP executive staff denied Ms. Hill’s appeals for request for a safe housing assignment made in her January 20, 2011 request for administrative remedy. (Id.)
63. Ms. Hill sought an administrative remedy when her protests did not convince the BOP to retain her PC status. The USP-Florence warden reviewed Ms. Hill’s explicit explanation of her history of sexual exploitation, her fears of further assaults, and the efforts she had made to convince USP-Florence officials to keep her in PC, and signed the form denying Ms. Hill’s request for an administrative remedy, concluding that there was no verifiable threat to her safety at USP-Florence and thus denying her request to be single celled.
64. Ms. Hill also directly informed the BOP of the risks to her safety and requested that they take action to protect her via multiple cop-outs (letters) and verbal conversations. None of the Individual Capacity Defendants responded to Ms. Hill’s requests for safe housing.
65. Without the minimal protections afforded to her by PC status, and as a direct result of the decision by multiple BOP officials to strip Ms. Hill of her protective custody and forcing her to have a cellmate, and executive staff’s ratification and affirmation of that decision, the risk to Ms. Hill’s safety was substantially increased.
66. A BOP psychologist also reviewed Ms. Hill’s requests for protective custody and was aware of the substantial risk to her safety that existed at USP-Florence. Nonetheless, that psychologist failed to take any measures to ensure Ms. Hill’s safety and in fact repeatedly attempted to coerce Ms. Hill into the extremely dangerous general population at USP-Florence

	  

18

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag1e91o9f 4o9f 49
by withholding mental health treatment on the ground that she needed to be “on the compound”—in other words, in general population—before he would provide such treatment.
67. Even though the BOP exhibited deliberate indifference to Ms. Hill’s need and requests for safe housing, Ms. Hill persisted in expressing her concerns.
68. For example, Ms. Hill filed an Inmate Request to Staff directed to a BOP psychologist on April 20, 2011, expressing her fears of being raped or physically assaulted.
69. Predictably, after her removal from PC, prisoners began soliciting Ms. Hill for sex through “kites,” which are written notes passed between prisoners. Some of these kites were sexually threatening. (E.g., Ex. 6 (Kite).) Ms. Hill showed these threatening, sexually explicit kites to USP-Florence SHU staff.
70. Knowing that the risk to her safety was increased by other prisoners’ knowledge that she had previously been sexually assaulted and was LGBT, Ms. Hill continued to request, through administrative remedies, kites, cop-outs, and verbal conversations, that she be placed back on PC status, afforded a single cell, and separated from prisoners who posed a risk to her safety. Ms. Hill requested safe housing from numerous BOP staff members.
71. Ms. Hill’s repeated requests for a safe housing assignment were denied and/or ignored by the BOP.
72. Ms. Hill’s repeated requests for a safe housing assignment further bolstered her reputation as a snitch amongst the USP-Florence SHU prisoners.
73. To make matters worse, two USP-Florence staff members exacerbated the risk to Ms. Hill’s safety while housed in the USP-Florence SHU.
74. In early 2011, a USP-Florence captain removed Ms. Hill and her cellmate from the SHU and handcuffed them together inside a recreation cage. Under these conditions, the

	  

19

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag2e02o0f 4o9f 49
captain forced Ms. Hill to recount the details of the USP-Victorville rapes so that her cellmate could hear.
75. This captain engaged in this conduct because Ms. Hill had sent complaints about the USP-Victorville rapes to various BOP officials and governmental investigative agencies (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation).
76. After the captain forced Ms. Hill to recount the details of the USP-Victorville rapes in the presence of another prisoner, he removed all of Ms. Hill’s property from her cell for 48 hours to prevent her from writing further complaints about her conditions of confinement.
77. Thereafter, and as a direct consequence of the captain’s conduct, USP-Florence SHU prisoners (in addition to Lucez’s associates) learned of Ms. Hill’s history of sexual assault, which significantly increased the risk to her safety.
78. Ms. Hill continued to receive sexually threatening kites from USP-Florence SHU inmates after this incident.
79. In response to continued threats to Ms. Hill’s safety, Ms. Hill again requested that she be placed back on PC status, afforded a single cell, and separated from prisoners who posed a risk to her safety.
80. Knowing of Ms. Hill’s repeated requests for a safe housing assignment, again in early 2011, a USP-Florence lieutenant called Ms. Hill a “little bitch” in audible range of other USP-Florence SHU prisoners and disclosed to those prisoners that Ms. Hill had cried in his office. The lieutenant’s conduct caused Ms. Hill her to appear weak to other SHU prisoners, and thereby exacerbated the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety.
81. These BOP staff members’ conduct created the same risk to Ms. Hill’s safety as would have been created if they had labeled Ms. Hill a snitch.

	  

20

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag2e12o1f 4o9f 49
82. Throughout the course of her time at USP-Florence, Ms. Hill repeatedly requested mental health treatment for trauma symptoms related to the USP-Victorville rapes and other rapes she had endured in BOP custody and, in the course of those requests, Ms. Hill reported to BOP psychology staff that there were existing threats to her safety at USP-Florence and that she feared future sexual and physical assaults.
83. Despite Ms. Hill’s pleas for help, BOP psychology staff did not provide mental health treatment, but instead repeatedly withheld treatment, claiming that such treatment could not be provided while Ms. Hill was living in the SHU. They denied Ms. Hill psychological treatment for her PTSD and RTS even though they knew that Ms. Hill was in the SHU for her own safety and that she had a well-founded fear of assault and abuse should she be moved into the general population.
84. Based on their repeated consultations with Ms. Hill and written requests Ms. Hill submitted to them, BOP psychology staff knew that Ms. Hill was a person in need of heightened protection due to her effeminate appearance, history of sexual assaults, LGBT identity, and reputation as a snitch.
85. On two occasions, the BOP went so far as to punish Ms. Hill for doing all that was in her power to protect herself by finding Ms. Hill guilty of disciplinary infractions for “Refusing a Program Assignment” and “Refusing a Direct Order.” On April 1, 2011, and September 22, 2011, the BOP found that Ms. Hill had refused to obey an order to leave the SHU and go into general population at USP-Florence, and that Ms. Hill had therefore violated BOP rules. On both occasions, Ms. Hill defended against the charges by informing the BOP that she was not safe in general population and could not leave the SHU.

	  

21

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag2e22o2f 4o9f 49
86. In approximately August 2011, the USP-Florence warden and a unit manager temporarily transferred Ms. Hill to FCI-Florence, a lower security prison. On information and belief, this transfer was effectuated because these officials were aware of the high risk of assault Ms. Hill faced while housed in the USP-Florence SHU. Nonetheless, the same individuals transferred Ms. Hill back to the USP-Florence SHU in the fall of 2011, knowing of the substantial risk of serious harm posed to her by that placement.
87. Upon her return to USP-Florence, the counselor conducting Ms. Hill’s intake interview concluded that Ms. Hill should not be placed in the general population for numerous reasons, including that she had assisted law enforcement officers, had testified against others in court (i.e., was a “snitch”), and was a CIM case. The counselor conducting the interview noted that he or she had reviewed Ms. Hill’s central file, which detailed her history of sexual abuse and assault, her mental health history, and the necessity of providing protective housing.
88. Ms. Hill was, accordingly, sent back to the USP-Florence SHU. 89. When Ms. Hill was sent back to the USP-Florence SHU, the unit manager told her that she had “made the choice” to come back to USP-Florence from FCI-Florence (where she had been relatively safe) by filing requests for administrative remedies about her unsafe and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 90. Upon assignment to the USP-Florence SHU, Ms. Hill’s unit team indiscriminately assigned Ms. Hill a cellmate without consideration for the documented and obvious risks to her safety. Predictably, that cellmate began threatening and physically assaulting Ms. Hill. 91. On December 6, 2011, Ms. Hill reported to a BOP psychology staff member that her cellmate was physically assaulting her. According to the staff member’s notes, he reported these physical assaults and recommended a cell reassignment to the SHU lieutenant.

	  

22

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag2e32o3f 4o9f 49
92. Even though he knew that her cellmate was physically assaulting her, Defendant Carter took Ms. Hill back to that cell and did not remove her immediately to protect her safety.
93. No BOP official took any action to remove Ms. Hill from these known dangerous conditions for two days.
94. Two days after BOP psychology staff documented Ms. Hill’s need for protection from her cellmate, she was transferred into another cell with another dangerous inmate in early December 2011.
95. Knowing of Ms. Hill’s vulnerability to sexual and physical assault and particular risk posed by Ms. Hill’s cellmate in December 2011,the BOP failed to respond reasonably to this risk to when, among other things:
a. Staff removed her PC status upon arrival to USP-Florence; b. Staff forced her, on multiple occasions, to live with a cellmate; c. Staff failed to choose a suitable, non-predatory cellmate for her; d. Staff failed to respond to Ms. Hill’s requests for a safe housing assignment; e. Staff failed to timely transfer Ms. Hill to an FCI; f. After staff did transfer Ms. Hill to FCI-Florence, they moved her back to the
USP-Florence SHU and forced her to accept a cellmate; g. Staff disciplined Ms. Hill for refusing to enter general population, which
would have been even more dangerous than the USP-Florence SHU; h. Staff physically assaulted Ms. Hill for refusing to accept a predatory and
dangerous cellmate; i. Staff disregarded and failed to take action after learning that numerous USP-
Florence SHU inmates had sent sexually threatening kites to Ms. Hill;

	  

23

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag2e42o4f 4o9f 49
j. Staff failed to reasonably respond to Ms. Hill’s numerous requests to staff and requests for administrative remedies asking for a safe housing assignment;
k. Staff failed to assign Ms. Hill a new cellmate after she complained that hers was physically assaulting her;
l. Staff exacerbated a hostile and unsafe environment for Ms. Hill in the USPFlorence SHU; and
m. Staff attempted to coerce Ms. Hill into an even more dangerous general population setting at USP-Florence by withholding mental health treatment.
96. The consequences of the BOP’s failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety during the period in which she was housed in the USP-Florence SHU were grave.
97. The night of December 16, 2011, Ms. Hill’s cellmate began stuffing rosary beads into the tip of his penis and commented to Ms. Hill to the effect of, “If you wake it, you’re going to burp it till it spits.”
98. Ms. Hill immediately notified the Number 1 SHU Officer, Angela McAlister – the then current officer in command – that she was at imminent risk of harm and that she needed to be removed from her cell.
99. Ms. McAlister came to Ms. Hill’s cell and told her there was no space to move her to a different cell.
100. Hours later, shortly after midnight December 17, 2011, Ms. Hill was violently raped by her cellmate, who the BOP had been informed at least 10 days previously was violent and posed an extreme risk to Ms. Hill.

	  

24

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag2e52o5f 4o9f 49
101. With the rosary beads still in his penis, the assailant caused significant tearing to Ms. Hill’s anus. (Ex. 7 (St. Thomas More Hospital Records).)
102. Because Ms. Hill feared further attack if she attempted to alert USP-Florence staff that she had been raped, and because the cell in which Ms. Hill was housed was not equipped with any sort of emergency or panic button, Ms. Hill remained silent for the rest of the night. Until the morning, Ms. Hill was forced to sit in underwear wet with her assailant’s semen and hold back tears and screams. For hours, Ms. Hill sat with her violent, predatory attacker only feet from her while having to relive the assault over and over again in her mind.
103. The first person to come by Ms. Hill’s cell in the morning was a nurse, who came to deliver Ms. Hill’s medications at approximately nine o’clock a.m.
104. Ms. Hill passed the nurse a note saying that she’d been raped and needed to be taken out of the cell immediately. In the note, Ms. Hill instructed the nurse to say Ms. Hill needed to be removed for blood work so as not to alert Ms. Hill’s cellmate that Ms. Hill had told staff he had raped her. In response to the note, the nurse loudly said, “Is this real? Are you for real? This better be real.”
105. The nurse finally notified guards, who came to remove Ms. Hill from the cell. 106. The guards took Ms. Hill to be interviewed for approximately an hour, where she was forced to sit in the clothes still soaked with her rapist’s semen. 107. Because she was suffering extreme trauma, Ms. Hill’s teeth were chattering during the interview. An officer, whose name is unknown, asked, “What, are you cold?” Ms. Hill responded, “No, don’t you understand how I feel right now?” The officer responded, “No, I’ve never had a dick in my ass.”

	  

25

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag2e62o6f 4o9f 49
108. Throughout the course of the interview, this officer repeatedly expressed the opinion that men who identify as gay or transgendered cannot be raped because, under certain circumstances, they have consented to sex with someone of the same sex.
109. Following the interview, Ms. Hill was placed in the SHU “shock cell,” a small, glass encased observation cell. While she was in the shock cell, multiple guards passed by and snickered and laughed at Ms. Hill, who was crying and visibly upset.
110. Ms. Hill was forced to continue to sit in clothes soaked in her rapist’s semen while she was in the shock cell.
111. After spending approximately one hour in the shock cell, guards took Ms. Hill to the intake area of the prison and removed her clothing and put it in a paper bag. They provided Ms. Hill with fresh clothing in preparation for transportation to the hospital.
112. Before leading Ms. Hill to the transport van, guards placed a blindfold over Ms. Hill’s eyes. It is not standard protocol to blindfold inmates during transport and Ms. Hill has never been blindfolded during transport before, including during her transport to USP-Florence.
113. Ms. Hill was transported to and received medical treatment at St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City, Colorado. (Ex. 7.)
114. Ms. Hill was taken back to the USP-Florence SHU and remained there for approximately two weeks, although she was then single-celled and kept away from all other inmates.
115. On December 30, 2011, Ms. Hill was transferred to FCI-Florence, where she was again given PC status.

	  

26

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag2e72o7f 4o9f 49
116. The BOP’s knowledge of and failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety were the direct cause of severe physical and emotional injuries Ms. Hill received as a result of the December 17, 2011 rape.
117. The BOP’s knowledge of and failure to respond reasonably to the risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety, as set forth herein, was willful, wanton, callous, and reckless.
118. As a consequence of the December 17, 2011 rape, Ms. Hill suffered physical injuries and severe emotional distress and pain and suffering.
C. The BOP’s Ongoing Failure To Respond Reasonably To The Risk Posed To Ms. Hill and the Resultant Harm Suffered
119. Since the December 17, 2011 rape, the BOP has continued to fail to safely house Ms. Hill. Repeating the pattern and practice that has caused Ms. Hill to be raped or physically assaulted at every USP she has ever been housed at, the BOP refuses to afford Ms. Hill a centralized, non-terminable PC status and permanent safe housing assignment that meets her needs as a transgendered prisoner and as a person who faces extraordinary risk of serious harm. Specifically, the BOP continues to transfer Ms. Hill from prison to prison, supposedly to effectuate her PC classification, and upon arrival to each new prison, strips her of that classification and attempts to force her into the general population. She is then forced to enter a double cell in the SHU, where she is predictably assaulted, at which point the BOP reactively reassigns Ms. Hill PC status and transfers her—again supposedly to effectuate the PC classification—only to have the cycle repeat all over again. The fundamental problem with the BOP’s policy and practice as applied to Ms. Hill is that it completely fails to recognize and account for the de facto risk of serious harm Ms. Hill faces each and every day at each and every male prison on account of her status as a transgendered prisoner, as a prisoner with a history of

	  

27

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag2e82o8f 4o9f 49
rape and other physical assault, as a snitch, and as a prisoner perceived by others to be effeminate and weak.
120. After USP-Florence, Ms. Hill was transferred to the USP in Tucson, Arizona (“USP-Tucson”), where, in accordance with BOP policy and practice, the PC designation she received after the USP-Florence rape was removed. Consequently, and again in accordance with BOP policy and practice, USP-Tucson staff attempted to force Ms. Hill into general population.
121. Knowing that she would certainly by physically and sexually assaulted in general population, and possibly even killed, Ms. Hill refused to enter general population. In so doing, she continued to notify BOP staff that she faced a significant and obvious risk of harm.
122. Again, in accordance with BOP policy and practice, USP-Tucson staff assigned Ms. Hill to a double-cell in the USP-Tucson SHU.
123. Predictably and in keeping with the pattern of Ms. Hill’s past victimization, Ms. Hill’s cellmate in the USP-Tucson SHU physically assaulted her on multiple occasions, which Ms. Hill reported to USP-Tucson staff.
124. She was subsequently given PC status and transferred to a USP in Coleman, Florida (“USP-Coleman I”).
125. Ms. Hill had been previously housed at USP Coleman I and had a documented history of being sexually assaulted there. Fearing for her safety at that facility, USP-Coleman I staff would not allow Ms. Hill into the general population, and submitted a transfer request for her.
126. Ms. Hill was then transferred to a different USP in Coleman, Florida (“USPColeman II”), where she was forced to continue to live in the SHU because she was not safe in general population.

	  

28

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag2e92o9f 4o9f 49
127. BOP officials placed Ms. Hill in the USP-Coleman II SHU with a gang dropout with a history of sexual assault. Predictably, this inmate sexually assaulted Ms. Hill, and she was again placed on PC status and recommended for transfer.
128. After a brief holdover at the USP in Atlanta, Georgia, Ms. Hill was transferred to USP-Allenwood, where she also had a history of sexual and physical assault. Upon arrival to USP-Allenwood, Ms. Hill immediately notified staff that she was not safe, and was forced, again, to live in the SHU.
129. Ms. Hill’s transfer to USP-Allenwood allowed her to be reunited with Dr. Mitchell, who has, as set forth above, been a vocal advocate for Ms. Hill to ensure her safety in the BOP.
130. Even though Dr. Mitchell continued to emphasize the inherent safety risk posed to Ms. Hill by her placement in the USP environment, on or around July 19, 2013, the BOP transferred Ms. Hill to the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute (“USP-Terre Haute”).
131. Ms. Hill had previously been assaulted at USP-Terre Haute and experienced significant anxiety and emotional distress when she was returned to that facility.
132. Given her history of assault at USP-Terre Haute and the inherent risk posed to her safety by being housed at the USP custody level, her safety remained at constant risk so long as she was housed there.
133. From USP-Terre Haute, Ms. Hill was transferred to the FCI in Butner, North Carolina (“FCI-Butner”). Although, on information and belief there is no formal or written policy designating it as such, FCI-Butner is typically regarded as a prison that houses and treats the medical and mental health needs of transgendered inmates.

	  

29

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag3e03o0f 4o9f 49
134. The ray of hope that emerged when Ms. Hill was transferred to FCI-Butner was quickly extinguished, however. Ms. Hill was transferred from FCI-Butner for medical treatment only two months after her arrival, and then sent back to Allenwood, Pennsylvania.
135. Although Ms. Hill was, this time, assigned to the FCI in Allenwood (“FCIAllenwood”), where she was initially able to enter general population, she quickly faced hostility and threats from the inmate population and was forced to enter the SHU.
136. On September 11, 2014, Ms. Hill was transferred back to FCI-Butner. The BOP purports to have transferred Ms. Hill to FCI-Butner to receive treatment for her gender dysphoria.
137. On information and belief, FCI-Butner manages a program for sexually violent predators. The inmates who participate in this program are general population inmates who have access to other inmates, including transgender inmates, housed at FCI-Butner.
138. Within four hours of her arrival at FCI-Butner, a male inmate attempted to sexually assault her in the shower. On information and belief, this inmate is a participant in FCIButner’s program for sexually violent predators.
139. After this attempted sexual assault, Ms. Hill was transferred to another unit at FCI-Butner. Today, she is housed in a dormitory style area with 21 other males. She is one of two transgender inmates housed in this area.
140. Ms. Hill is housed with a male cellmate. 141. None of the cell doors at FCI-Butner lock, which creates a grave risk that any inmate, including a sexually violent predator, could enter Ms. Hill’s cell at any time and physically and/or sexually assault her. 142. FCI-Butner is extraordinarily overcrowded.

	  

30

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag3e13o1f 4o9f 49

143. FCI-Butner is not a safe housing assignment for Ms. Hill. 144. Despite the ongoing risk posed to Ms. Hill’s safety, the BOP has completely failed to take reasonable measures to abate the inherent and substantial risk to Ms. Hill absent permanent PC status and/or single celling. For example, the BOP has failed to mandate that Ms. Hill be housed at no higher than the FCI custody level to preclude her placement in USPs, which are notoriously violent. The BOP has also failed to afford Ms. Hill a centralized PC designation that would require that she receive protection yet not be housed in the damaging and isolating conditions of the SHU wherever she is housed within the agency. Instead, The BOP has left individual facilities to create their own PC policies, which has resulted in inconsistent application of protective measures to Ms. Hill. 145. Moreover, the BOP has failed to house Ms. Hill in a facility commensurate with her needs as a transgender prisoner. Instead, the BOP has continued to house Ms. Hill in male institutions. 146. Ms. Hill’s continuous transfers between dangerous BOP facilities, and the BOP’s failure to provide a safe environment for her, demonstrate the agency’s ongoing deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of harm posed to Ms. Hill. 	   D. Ms. Hill’s Serious Medical And Mental Health Needs Arising From Repeated
Rapes She Has Endured While In BOP Custody 147. As a result of the USP-Victorville rapes and other rapes she has endured while in BOP custody, including the USP-Florence rape, Ms. Hill has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and Rape Trauma Syndrome (“RTS”). 148. PTSD is a psychological condition commonly experienced by rape survivors. The condition causes persons who have suffered trauma to experience trauma symptoms even when not directly experiencing a trauma. PTSD is a condition that can last indefinitely.

	  

31

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag3e23o2f 4o9f 49

149. Like PTSD, RTS is a psychological condition brought on by the traumatic experience of rape. RTS disrupts cognitive, emotional, physical, and interpersonal functioning. RTS is a condition that can last for years.
150. Symptoms Ms. Hill experiences that are associated with PTSD and RTS include, but are not limited to:
a. Extreme anxiety and panic attacks; b. Fear and extreme nervousness; c. Overwhelming guilt and shame; d. Sleep deprivation; e. Hopelessness and helplessness; f. Difficulty maintaining close relationships; g. Flashbacks and reliving of past rapes and physical assaults; h. Upsetting dreams; i. Cognitive difficulties; j. Frequent crying; k. Mood swings; l. Dissociation; m. Fatigue; and n. Tension. 151. The most effective treatment for both PTSD and RTS is talk therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy. Other types of psychotherapy treatment may be appropriate. 152. PTSD and RTS constitute serious medical and mental health needs. E. The BOP’s Failure to Provide Adequate Mental Health Treatment For Ms. Hill’s Rape Trauma Syndrome And Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

	  

32

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag3e33o3f 4o9f 49

153. To ease her mental suffering and symptoms associated with her PTSD and RTS, Ms. Hill repeatedly requested mental health treatment in the form of talk therapy and medication from while at USP-Florence.
154. USP-Florence psychology staff were assigned to treat Ms. Hill and therefore received these repeated requests for help. However, these staff repeatedly failed to reasonably respond to Ms. Hill’s requests for mental health treatment.
155. Specifically, USP-Florence psychology staff’s actions included, but were not limited to:
a. Repeatedly denying Ms. Hill talk therapy not on the grounds that it was unnecessary medical treatment, but, rather, on the grounds that she could only receive such treatment if she “agreed to come out to the compound,” even though Ms. Hill’s life would have been threatened by entering general population at USP-Florence; and
b. Repeatedly creating signed written records indicating that Ms. Hill had not requested mental health treatment and was not experiencing any significant mental health symptoms that would require treatment greater than that she was being provided even though Ms. Hill had repeatedly indicated she was in need of mental health treatment and had repeatedly requested such treatment.
156. In addition, although USP-Florence psychology staff continued Ms. Hill’s prescription for medication intended to aid in treating her PTSD and RTS symptoms, medication alone constituted grossly inadequate treatment. These staff knew and recognized that additional treatment – namely, talk therapy – was necessary and appropriate treatment for Ms. Hill, but denied such treatment without grounds.

	  

33

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag3e43o4f 4o9f 49
157. Since her transfer from USP-Florence, the BOP has continued to fail to adequately treat Ms. Hill’s PTSD and RTS.
158. Ms. Hill continues to suffer severe symptoms of PTSD and RTS. Yet, the BOP has failed to afford Ms. Hill meaningful, consistent, and adequate medical and mental health treatment.
159. The Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”), a federal statute intended to provide greater protection and improve rape trauma-related services available to survivors of prison rape, requires that prisons, including the BOP, provide timely and appropriate medical and mental health care after a prisoner has been raped. The PREA requirements, while not giving rise to a cause of action on their own, provide guidance as to what constitutes adequate medical and mental health treatment after a prisoner has suffered a rape.
160. An express purpose of PREA is to bring the BOP into compliance with the Eighth Amendment.
161. Specifically, the Department of Justice regulations that implement PREA require, among other things, the BOP to provide timely and appropriate medical and mental health care to victims of sexual abuse, and provide the victim access to victim advocates from rape crisis centers for emotional support services relate to the sexual abuse. In addition, these regulations seek to restrict the use of SHU or solitary confinement as a means of protecting vulnerable inmates and require the BOP to create a safer environment through training and screening protocols, education of inmates and guards, development of protocols that encourage reporting of abuse, and requiring more prompt and thorough investigation of claims of rape.

	  

34

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag3e53o5f 4o9f 49
162. The BOP has failed to comply with these regulations by not providing consistent, continuous, adequate, or appropriate mental health treatment to Ms. Hill, as well as by housing Ms. Hill in SHU as the only means of protecting her from further assaults.
163. Although Ms. Hill has had some access to mental health care providers who have provided talk therapy, that access has been minimal, sporadic at best, and insufficient to appropriately treat her PTSD and RTS. As of the date of this Amended Complaint, Ms. Hill does not have access to any talk therapy or other adequate emotional support services.
164. In addition, Ms. Hill’s long-term placement in the SHU, which she has been forced to endure because the BOP has failed to house her at adequately safe facilities, also has exacerbated the symptoms of her PTSD and RTS.
165. The BOP’s failure to consistently and appropriately safely house Ms. Hill exacerbates the symptoms of her PTSD and RTS.
166. These failures constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical and mental health need.
F. Gender Dysphoria 167. Ms. Hill has gender dysphoria, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (“DSM-V”). 168. The American Psychiatric Association, in the DSM-V, describes transgender persons as those who suffer from gender dysphoria. The diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria include a long-standing and strong identification with another gender, long-standing disquiet about the sex assigned or a sense of incongruity in the gender-assigned role of that sex, no physical intersex characteristics, and significant distress or impairment in occupational functioning, social functioning, and other areas of life. According to the DSM-V, a transsexual is

	  

35

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag3e63o6f 4o9f 49
someone who desires to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by the wish to make his or her body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatment, the transsexual identity has been present for at least two years, and the disorder is not a symptom of another mental disorder or a chromosomal abnormality.
169. Symptoms of gender dysphoria can be extremely painful. They can include extreme emotional discomfort, a desire to hide or be rid of physical signs of the biological sex, and a strong dislike for and desire to change the genitalia of the biological sex.
170. Gender dysphoria constitutes a serious medical need. 171. Appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria includes, but is not limited to:
a. Mental health support; b. Hormone treatment; c. Dress of preferred gender role; d. Grooming supplies of preferred gender role; e. Hygiene supplies of preferred gender role; f. Use of name and pronouns of preferred gender role; g. Opportunities to behave in preferred gender role; h. Language and speech therapy; i. Hair removal treatments or devices; j. Peer support groups; and k. Sex reassignment therapy or surgery. 172. Additionally, in the prison or jail context, treatment for gender dysphoria includes, but is not limited to:

	  

36

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag3e73o7f 4o9f 49

a. Freedom from retaliation and harassment by prison or jail staff and other inmates;
b. Housing with other LGBT inmates, or inmates of the same preferred gender; c. Separate housing, or at a minimum separate bathroom and shower facilities,
from other inmates, if the inmate is housed in a facility of those with the same biological sex; d. Pat and strip searches conducted by a staff member of the gender of the inmate’s choice; e. Confidentiality of the inmate’s sexual orientation; f. Availability of LGBT literature and resources; g. Staff training regarding transgender inmates; and h. Protective custody. 173. Gender dysphoria constitutes a serious medical and mental health need. G. The BOP’s Failure to Timely Evaluate Ms. Hill And Provide Treatment Based Upon A Diagnosis of Her Gender Dysphoria 174. As early as 2005, Ms. Hill’s prison psychologists recognized her gender identity issues, reporting in her file that Ms. Hill “continues to very appropriately discuss relevant gender identity and sexuality issues, as they relate to his functioning here, and more significantly to his transition to community and desire for healthy relationships. He more clearly vocalizes his overt identification with females and wish to more fully express himself in this manner post-release.” (Ex. 2 at SHILL00285.) 175. Despite the obvious need for an evaluation of Ms. Hill’s claim that she identified as a woman and therefore had gender dysphoria, the BOP failed to provide a formal evaluation of Ms. Hill’s condition in 2005. Indeed, no evaluation whatsoever was performed until 2012.

	  

37

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag3e83o8f 4o9f 49
176. The BOP’s medical records for Ms. Hill suggest a diagnosis in September 2012 and indicate another formal evaluation diagnosing Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria in November 2013.
177. Despite the 2012 and 2013 diagnoses, the BOP and its personnel have repeatedly asserted that additional evaluations were necessary to confirm Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria diagnosis before treatment can be provided.
178. The BOP has failed to timely perform these additional evaluations, and has not performed the necessary medical consultation to confirm that hormone therapy was an appropriate treatment, despite repeatedly recognizing that such a medical evaluation was the requisite next step in Ms. Hill’s medical treatment.
179. The BOP’s records, however, confirm that Ms. Hill was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and treatment should have been provided long ago to alleviate the severe distress she feels at being a woman in a man’s body.
180. According to Ms. Hill’s medical records, BOP doctor Rashid Khan diagnosed Ms. Hill as having gender dysphoria on September 20, 2012. (Ex. 8 (Clinical Records) at SHILL00329-333.)
181. In May 2013, Ms. Hill informed her doctors that she was “very distressed to have male anatomy” and “was requesting assistance in working towards transition.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000361.) Ms. Hill also expressed her ideation about self-mutilation to remove her male anatomy. (Id.) The attending physician responded that he was unaware of the guidelines for treating inmates with gender dysphoria, and provided no treatment. (Id.)
182. Dr. Mitchell of USP-Allenwood reported that he had begun to discuss with Ms. Hill a “possible start to GID treatment procedures” as early as May 22, 2013, thus indicating that

	  

38

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag3e93o9f 4o9f 49
Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria already had been diagnosed, but no formal medical evaluation or treatment was provided. (Ex. 8 at BOP000503.)
183. Dr. Mitchell further reported in June and July 2013 that Ms. Hill “is a genderidentity disordered inmate who appears outwardly effeminate and has the gender identity of a female,” is “outwardly effeminate and has Gender Identity Disorder. . .” (Ex. 2 at BOP000499.) Again, no formal medical evaluation or treatment was provided at that time.
184. In July 2013, psychology staff recognized Ms. Hill as “a gender-identity disordered inmate who appears outwardly effeminate and has the gender identity of a female,” and that she expressed a desire to pursue hormone therapy. (Ex. 2 at BOP000480.) Again, no formal medical evaluation or treatment was provided at that time.
185. In August 2013, Ms. Hill informed the USP-Terre Haute psychologist that she was seeking a transfer to a lower security facility based on her transgender issues and history of sexual assault. (Ex. 2 at BOP000489.) Ms. Hill also requested materials on transgender issues and asked about possibility of hormone therapy. (Id.)
186. No additional evaluation of Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria was performed until November 2013, however. (Ex. 2 at BOP000474-484.)
187. The psychologist performing that evaluation noted that no treatment for Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria could commence until Ms. Hill also had an evaluation by a medical professional. (Ex. 2 at BOP000483.)
188. On November 5, 2013, staff psychologist Ericka N. Schmitt at Terre Haute FCI reported in her clinical notes that she discussed with Ms. Hill her diagnosis of gender identity disorder, and informed Ms. Hill that a treatment plan would be created. (Ex. 2 at BOP000473. No treatment plan was created, however.

	  

39

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag4e04o0f 4o9f 49
189. In November 2013, upon her transfer from USP-Terre Haute to FCI-Butner, Ms. Hill informed the staff psychologist, Jill R. Haughawout, that she had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder while at USP-Terre Haute and had been sent to Butner for hormone therapy. (Ex. 2 at BOP000467.) The staff at FCI-Butner did not accept that a diagnosis already had been performed, or provide any hormone therapy.
190. Instead, in January 2014, Ms. Hill’s doctors at FCI-Butner noted that her gender identity disorder evaluation was “in progress,” even though her records diagnosed gender dysphoria in September 2012, and an evaluation formally confirmed the diagnosis in November 2013. (Ex. 8 at BOP000087-89 at 87.)
191. On January 5, 2014, BOP psychology staff again formally diagnosed Ms. Hill with gender dysphoria. (Ex. 2 at BOP000232-241.)
192. BOP psychology staff, doctors, and other personnel repeatedly confirmed this diagnosis throughout 2014.
193. By May 2014, Ms. Hill still had not received any hormone therapy for her gender dysphoria – nor any supplemental medical evaluations that the BOP claims are a predicate to treatment – and expressed concern to her doctors that she might never get treatment. (Ex. 8 at BOP000023).) Indeed, the fear of not receiving treatment was so dire for Ms. Hill that she expressed a desire to castrate herself because “it ([her] penis and scrotum) shouldn’t be there.” (Id.) Despite the severity of Ms. Hill’s distress relating to her gender dysphoria, she has not yet received treatment.
194. Though Ms. Hill’s medical records confirm a diagnosis of gender dysphoria as early as 2012, and again on January 5, 2014, on May 5, 2014, Ms. Hill’s doctors noted that her gender dysphoria diagnosis needed to be confirmed before “efforts will be made to transfer

	  

40

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag4e14o1f 4o9f 49
patient to an institution that is close to an Endocrinologist with experience in Trans-Health Care.” (Ex. 8 at BOP000028.)
195. Ms. Hill’s doctors have recognized that “Inmate Hill is a candidate for hormone treatment. . .” (Ex. 8 at BOP00007-08.)
196. As of June 20, 2014, Ms. Hill’s doctors recognized that “[t]here does not seem to be any disagreement with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria for this inmate.” (Ex. 2 at BOP000009-11 at 10.) Her doctors noted that “transfer to a facility with an endocrinologist nearby who has experience with transgender patients is recommended.” (Id.)
197. Despite the uniformity of the BOP’s medical opinions regarding the need for treatment of Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria and the propriety of hormone therapy, and even though she was purportedly transferred to FCI-Butner to receive treatment, Ms. Hill’s hormone therapy was significantly delayed and remains incomplete and inadqueate.
198. Ms. Hill has specifically requested the following treatment for her gender dysphoria:
a. To be provided hormone therapy; b. To have sexual reassignment surgery; c. To be free from retaliation and harassment by BOP staff and other inmates; d. To be referred to using her female name, Samantha, and feminine pronouns; e. To be provided female clothing, undergarments, hygiene and grooming
products, and any cosmetic products as may be allowed for her custody level; f. Separate bathrooms and shower facilities where males are not present; g. Housing with females or other LGBT inmates; h. To be free from sexual and physical assault by other inmates;

	  

41

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag4e24o2f 4o9f 49

i. Pat and strip searches to be conducted by a staff member of the gender of Ms.
Hill’s choice;
j. Confidentiality of Ms. Hill’s sexual orientation;
k. LGBT literature and resources;
l. Medical and mental health care appropriate to Ms. Hill’s sexual orientation
and history of rape in custody;
m. Staff training regarding transgender inmates; and
n. Protective custody.
199. BOP policy provides that inmates who have gender dysphoria will receive
treatment, or will at least be evaluated to determine the appropriateness of treatment.
200. Specifically, BOP policy requires that:
[I]nmates who assert they have [gender dysphoria]2 will receive thorough medical and mental health evaluations from medical professionals with basic competence in the assessment of the DSM [V] sexual disorders and who have participated in BOP’s [gender dysphoria] training… The evaluation will include an assessment of the inmate’s treatment and life experiences prior to incarceration (including hormone therapy, completed or in-process surgical interventions, real life experience consistent with the inmate’s gender identity, private expressions that conform to the preferred gender, and counseling). If a diagnosis of [gender dsyphoria] is reached, a proposed treatment plan will be developed which promotes the physical and mental stability of the patient. The development of the treatment plan is not solely dependent on services provided or the inmate’s life experiences prior to incarceration. The treatment plan may include elements or services that were, or were not, provided prior to incarceration, including, but not limited to: those elements of the real life experience consistent with the prison environment, hormone therapy and counseling. Treatment plans will be reviewed regularly and updated as necessary.
Current, accepted standards of care will be used as a reference for developing the treatment plan. All appropriate treatment options prescribed for inmates with
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	    2 In 2013, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was updated from version IV to version V. A significant change in version V is the renaming of what was previously termed gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria. As the relevant BOP policy was written before this update, it refers to gender identity disorder. 	  

	  

42

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag4e34o3f 4o9f 49
[gender dysphoria] in currently accepted standards of care will be taken into consideration during evaluation by the appropriate medical and mental health care staff. Each treatment plan or denial of treatment must be reviewed by the Medical Director or BOP Chief Psychiatrist. Hormone therapy must be requested through the non-formulary review process, and approved by the Medical Director and/or BOP Chief Psychiatrist. In summary, inmates in the custody of the Bureau with a possible diagnosis of [gender dysphoria] will receive a current individualized assessment and evaluation. Treatment options will not be precluded solely due to level of services received, or lack of services, prior to incarceration. (Ex. 9 (Memorandum for Chief Executive Officers dated May 31, 2011).) 201. The BOP has failed to provide any treatment whatsoever, and certainly adequate treatment, for Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria. 202. The BOP has failed to permanently assign Ms. Hill to a facility where she will obtain adequate medical and mental health treatment, including safe housing, for her gender dysphoria. 203. Additionally, PREA requires that the BOP, among other things:
a. Develop and maintain a zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse; b. Screen inmates for risk of being sexually abused or sexually abusive, and use
screening information to inform housing, bed, work education, and program assignments; c. Educate and train employees on their responsibilities in preventing, recognizing and responding to sexual abuse; d. Ban cross-gender pat-down searches of female inmates in prisons and jails; e. Enable inmates to shower, perform bodily functions and changes clothing without improper viewing by staff of the opposite gender; f. Require adequate levels of staffing to protect vulnerable inmates;

	  

43

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag4e44o4f 4o9f 49

g. Provide adequate medical and mental health care; and h. Adequately investigate all reports of sexual and physical abuse and sufficient
and safe means for prisoners to report abuse. 204. The BOP has failed to comply with PREA requirements pertaining to gender dysphoria treatment. 205. The BOP’s failure to treat Ms. Hill’s gender dysphoria constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious medical and mental health need.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Federal Tort Claims Act: Negligence by Defendant United States) 206. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Second Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 207. As set forth herein, the BOP was aware that Ms. Hill was at a heightened risk of sexual predation based on her diminutive stature, her effeminate appearance, her history of sexual assault, and her sexual orientation. 208. The BOP was expressly and personally informed of the substantial risk to Ms. Hill’s safety, but failed to respond reasonably to that risk and ensure that she was housed in safe conditions. 209. The United States, through the BOP and its employees, had actual knowledge of the substantial risk that Ms. Hill would be sexually assaulted while housed at USP-Florence. 210. The United States, through the BOP and its employees, negligently failed to protect Ms. Hill from serious harm by housing her with a cellmate in the USP-Florence SHU, causing her to be raped by her cellmate on December 17, 2011.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Eighth Amendment: Deliberate Indifference to Substantial Risk of Serious Harm and Serious
Medical Needs by Defendant BOP)

	  

44

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag4e54o5f 4o9f 49
211. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Second Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
212. Defendant BOP continues to deliberately disregard the substantial risk of serious harm posed to Ms. Hill’s safety by failing to provide safe housing for her and ensure her safety wherever she is housed in the BOP.
213. Defendants’ failure to protect Ms. Hill from a substantial risk of serious harm constitutes a violation of her right against cruel and unusual punishment protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 	  
214. Defendant BOP continues to deliberately disregard Ms. Hill’s serious medical and mental health needs pertaining to her RTS and PTSD.
215. Defendant BOP’s failure to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment to Ms. Hill constitutes a violation of her right against cruel and unusual punishment protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 	  
216. Defendant BOP, on an ongoing basis, has failed to provide Ms. Hill adequate medical and mental health care pertaining to her gender dysphoria.
217. Defendant BOP, on an ongoing basis, has acted with deliberate indifference to Ms. Hill’s serious medical and mental health needs.
218. Defendant BOP’s failure to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment to Ms. Hill constitutes a violation of her right against cruel and unusual punishment protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants for:

	  

45

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag4e64o6f 4o9f 49
(a) Nominal and compensatory damages to compensate her for her physical injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress suffered as a result of the United States’ failure to protect her;
(b) An injunction directing that the BOP implement such measures as are necessary to ensure Ms. Hill is safely housed within the BOP. At a minimum, Ms. Hill shall be afforded:
a. A centralized protective custody designation not subject to removal; b. Housing with other LGBT inmates and separation from male inmates; c. Removal from SHU and cessation of social isolation; d. Access to programming and rehabilitative services commensurate with the
access afforded other inmates of Ms. Hill’s custody level; and e. Housing in a facility where staff have been appropriately trained in custody
matters pertaining to LGBT inmates. (c) An injunction prohibiting the BOP from housing Ms. Hill at a male USP. (d) An injunction directing that the BOP provide Ms. Hill with consistent, continuous, appropriate, and adequate medical and mental health treatment for her PTSD, RTS, and gender dysphoria. At a minimum, that treatment shall include:
a. Freedom from retaliation and harassment by BOP staff and other inmates; b. Reference using her female name, Samantha, and feminine pronouns; c. Female clothing, undergarments, hygiene and grooming products, and any
cosmetic products as may be allowed for her custody level; d. Separate bathrooms and shower facilities where males are not present; e. Hormone therapy; f. Housing with females or other LGBT inmates;

	  

46

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag4e74o7f 4o9f 49
g. Freedom from sexual and physical assault by other inmates; h. Pat and strip searches to be conducted by a staff member of the gender of Ms.
Hill’s choice; i. Confidentiality of Ms. Hill’s sexual orientation; j. LGBT literature and resources; k. Medical and mental health care appropriate to Ms. Hill’s sexual orientation
and history of rape in custody; l. Staff training regarding transgender inmates; m. Protective custody; and n. Sex reassignment surgery; (e) A declaration that Defendants’ conduct, as set forth in this Amended Complaint, violated and continues to violate Ms. Hill’s rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (f) An award of attorneys’ fees and costs; (g) Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. DATED this 2_th day of May, 2015.

	  

47

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag4e84o8f 4o9f 49

Respectfully submitted,

BRYAN CAVE LLP

s/ Sarah Hartley Stephen D. Gurr Sarah Hartley 1700 Lincoln Street Suite 4100 Denver, CO 80203 T: 303-861-7000 F: 303-866-0200 E: steve.gurr@bryancave.com
Sarah.hartley@bryancave.com 	  
PRISONERS’ JUSTICE LEAGUE OF COLORADO LLC

s/ Elisabeth L. Owen

Elisabeth L. Owen

150 E. 10th Avenue

Denver, CO 80203

T: 720-287-5836

F: 303-832-2628

E: lisi@pjlcolorado.com

	  

	  

	  

48

CCaassee11::1133--ccvv--0033440044--MMSSKK--NNYYWW DDooccuummeenntt8896-1FileFdile0d6/0051//2195/15USUDSCDCCoClooralodroadoPaPgeag4e94o9f 4o9f 49
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May _, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:
• Amy	  L.	  Padden	   amy.padden@usdoj.gov;	  mary.leistikow@usdoj.gov;	  USACO.ECFCivil@usdoj.gov	  	   Counsel for Defendants
• Stephen	  D.	  Gurr;	  Sarah	  Hartley	   steve.gurr@bryancave.com;	  sarah.hartley@bryancave.com	  	   Co-­‐Counsel	  for	  Plaintiff	  
s/ Elisabeth L. Owen Elisabeth L. Owen
	  

	  

49

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03404-MSK-BNB
SCOTT HILL a/k/a SAMANTHA HILL, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, a United States agency, PAUL A. LAIRD, Regional Director, North Central Region, Bureau of Prisons, sued in his individual capacity, CHARLES A. DANIELS, Warden of the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DR. MARK CARTER, Staff Psychologist at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DR. DANIEL SEVERN, Staff Psychiatrist at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his individual capacity, WILLIAM HUTCHINGS, captain at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his individual capacity, FIRST NAME UNKNOWN ANTHONY, lieutenant at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DIANE BORGES, counselor at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in her individual capacity, RICHARD DERR, unit manager at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his individual capacity, B. JANUSZ, case manager at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his/her individual capacity, G. LYDE, unit manager at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his/er individual capacity, T. JAVERNICK, CMC at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his/her individual capacity, S. BROWN, special investigative agent at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his/her individual capacity, K. JOHNSON, associate warden at the United States Penitentiary - Florence, sued in his/her individual capacity, and MICHAEL K. NALLEY,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the following motions filed by the defendants on July 21, 2014 (the “Motions”):
(1) Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #44]; and (2) The Bureau of Prisons’ Partial Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #45]. The plaintiff filed her initial Complaint on December 17, 2013. In response to the Complaint, the defendants filed the Motions. Thereafter, on September 25, 2014, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. #57]. The defendants have received an extension of time until November 13, 2014, to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motions [Docs. ## 44 and 45] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. Dated October 15, 2014.
BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge
2

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 1 of 11
ALLMTN,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−03404−MSK−NYW

Hill v. United States of America et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger Referred to: Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Scott Hill also known as Samantha Hill

Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Date Terminated: 06/02/2015 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner − Civil Rights (U.S. not a defendant) Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Elisabeth L. Owen Prisoners Justice League of Colorado LLC 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303−831−7364 Fax: 303−832−2628 Email: lisi@pjlcolorado.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Elizabeth April Bryan Cave LLP−Denver 1700 Lincoln Street Suite 4100 Denver, CO 80203−4541 303−833−0231 Fax: 303−223−1111 Email: sarah.april@bryancave.com TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Sarah Levine Hartley Bryan Cave LLP−Denver 1700 Lincoln Street Suite 4100 Denver, CO 80203−4541 303−866−0363 Fax: 303−335−3963 Email: sarah.hartley@bryancave.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen D. Gurr Bryan Cave, LLP−Denver 1700 Lincoln Street Suite 4100 Denver, CO 80203−4541 303−861−7000 Fax: 303−866−0200 Email: steve.gurr@bryancave.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant United States of America

represented by Amy L. Padden U.S. Attorney's Office−Denver 1225 17th Street Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 303−454−0100

Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 2 of 11

Fax: 303−454−0408 Email: amy.padden@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Bureau of Prisons a United States agency

represented by Amy L. Padden U.S. Attorney's Office−Denver 1225 17th Street East Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 303−454−0100 Fax: 303−454−0408 Email: amy.padden@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Anthony First name unknown, lieutenant at the United States Penitentiary − Florence sued his individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Diane Borges counselor at the United States Penitentiary − Florence, sued in her individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
S. Brown special investigative agent at the United States Penitentiary − Florence, sued in his / her individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mark Carter Dr., Staff Psychologist at the United States Penitentiary − Florence, sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Charles A. Daniels Warden of the United States Penitentiary − Florence, sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Richard Derr unit manager at the United States Penitentiary − Florence, sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
William Hutchings captain at the United States Penitentiary

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address)

Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 3 of 11

− Florance, sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
B. Janusz case manager at the United States Penitentiary − Florence, sued in his / her individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
T. Javernick CMC at the United States Penitentiary − Florence, sued in his / her individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
K. Johnson associate warden at the United States Penitentiary − Florence, sued in his / her individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Paul A. Laird Regional Director, North Central Region, Bureau of Prisons, sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
G. Lyde unit manager at the United States Penitentiary − Florence, sued in his / her individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael (I) K. Nalley TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Daniel Severn Dr., Staff Psychiatrist at the United States Penitentiary − Florence, sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/01/2015

represented by Amy L. Padden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/17/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT and Jury Demand against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400,Receipt Number 1082−3664631)Attorney Stephen D. Gurr added to party Scott Hill(pty:pla), filed by Scott Hill. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Envelope 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Gurr, Stephen) (Entered: 12/17/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 4 of 11

12/17/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 01/06/2014 01/06/2014 01/27/2014
01/30/2014
03/05/2014 03/06/2014 03/07/2014 03/10/2014 03/26/2014 03/26/2014 03/26/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014

2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Text Only Entry (dbera, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
3 ORDER Drawing Case. This case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/20/2013. (skl) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
4 CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to 3 Order. This case is reassigned to Judge Wiley Y. Daniel. All future pleadings should be designated as 13−cv−03404−WYD−BNB. Text Only Entry (skl) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
5 MEMORANDUM RETURNING CASE by Senior Judge Daniel. (jjhsl, ) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
6 CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to 5 Memorandum Returning Case. This case is reassigned to Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger. All future pleadings should be designated as 13−cv−3404−MSK−BNB. Text Only Entry (jjhsl, ) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
7 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this matter is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to:(1)Convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), enter a Scheduling Order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, enter such orders as appropriate to enforce the Scheduling Order, and resolve discovery matters;(2)ADR: Court sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the recommendation or informal request of the magistrate judge or on the request of the parties by motion, the Court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding;(3)Hear and determine referred matters in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/27/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
8 ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS: Any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60 days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will be destroyed. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/30/14. Text Only Entry (mskcd) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
9 SUMMONS REQUEST as to Borges, Carter, Severn by Plaintiff Scott Hill. (Attachments: # 1 Summons for Diane Borges, # 2 Summons for Dr. Mark Carter, # 3 Summons for Dr. Severn)(April, Sarah) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
10 SUMMONSES issued by Clerk. (klyon, ) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
11 SUMMONS REQUEST as to G. Lyde by Plaintiff Scott Hill. (Attachments: # 1 Summons for Gilbert Lyde)(April, Sarah) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
12 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. (klyon, ) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Scott Hill. Diane Borges served on 3/7/2014, answer due 3/28/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Scott Hill. Daniel Severn served on 3/10/2014, answer due 3/31/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Scott Hill. G. Lyde served on 3/19/2014, answer due 4/9/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) Anthony served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
17 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) Diane Borges served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 5 of 11

04/16/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014 04/16/2014
04/17/2014 04/17/2014
04/17/2014 04/24/2014 05/23/2014
05/27/2014

18 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) Mark Carter served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
19 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) Charles A. Daniels served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
20 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) Richard Derr served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
21 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) B. Janusz served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
22 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) T. Javernick served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
23 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) United States Bureau of Prisons served on 4/15/2014, answer due 6/16/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) K. Johnson served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
25 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) Paul A. Laird served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
26 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) G. Lyde served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
27 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) Daniel Severn served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
28 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to TO SERVE TWO DEFENDANTS WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT by Plaintiff Scott Hill. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(April, Sarah) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
29 MEMORANDUM regarding 28 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to TO SERVE TWO DEFENDANTS WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT filed by Scott Hill. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 4/16/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
30 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Sarah Levine Hartley on behalf of Scott HillAttorney Sarah Levine Hartley added to party Scott Hill(pty:pla) (Hartley, Sarah) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
31 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/17/14. The Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Two Defendants With a Summons and Complaint 28 is GRANTED and plaintiff shall have an additional sixty days, up to and including June 15, 2014, in which to serve two defendants, William Hutchings and S. Brown, with a Summons and Complaint. (bsimm) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
32 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Amy L. Padden on behalf of United States Bureau of PrisonsAttorney Amy L. Padden added to party United States Bureau of Prisons(pty:dft) (Padden, Amy) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
33 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) William Hutchings served on 3/31/2014, answer due 5/30/2014. (Hartley, Sarah) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
34 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 1 Complaint, by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
35 MEMORANDUM regarding 34 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 1 Complaint, filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, United States Bureau of Prisons, Charles A. Daniels, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, Paul A. Laird, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 5/27/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 6 of 11

05/27/2014
05/29/2014 05/29/2014 05/29/2014 06/10/2014 06/27/2014
06/30/2014
06/30/2014
07/21/2014 07/21/2014 08/08/2014 08/11/2014

05/27/2014)
36 MINUTE ORDER granting 34 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 5/27/14. Defendants United States Bureau of Prisons, Paul Laird, Charles Daniels, Dr. Mark Carter, Dr. Daniel Severn, William Hutchings, FNU Anthony, Diane Borgers, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, G. Lyde, T. Javernick and K. Johnson shall answer by 6/30/2014.(dkals, ) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
37 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Sarah E. April by Plaintiff Scott Hill. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Hartley, Sarah) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
38 MEMORANDUM regarding 37 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Sarah E. April filed by Scott Hill. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 5/29/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
39 MINUTE ORDER granting 37 Unopposed Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 5/29/14. Attorney Sarah Elizabeth April terminated.(dkals, ) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
40 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) S. Brown served on 6/3/2014, answer due 8/4/2014. (Hartley, Sarah) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
41 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 1 Complaint, by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
42 MEMORANDUM regarding 41 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 1 Complaint, filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, United States Bureau of Prisons, Charles A. Daniels, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, Paul A. Laird, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 6/30/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
43 MINUTE ORDER granting 41 Second Unopposed Motion for Extension ofTime to Respond to Complaint by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/30/14.Defendants United States Bureau of Prisons, Paul Laird, Charles Daniels, Dr. Mark Carter, Dr. Daniel Severn, Williams Hutchings, FNU Anthony, Diane Borgers, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, G. Lyde, T. Javernick and K. Johnson shall answer by 7/21/14 (dkals, ) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
44 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction /Personal Jurisdiction by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn. (Padden, Amy) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
45 Partial MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Defendant United States Bureau of Prisons. (Padden, Amy) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
46 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 45 Partial MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 44 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction /Personal Jurisdiction by Plaintiff Scott Hill. (Owen, Elisabeth) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
47 MEMORANDUM regarding 44 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction /Personal Jurisdiction filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, Charles A. Daniels, S. Brown, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, Paul A. Laird, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 8/11/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 08/11/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 7 of 11

08/11/2014 08/11/2014 09/02/2014 09/03/2014 09/03/2014 09/11/2014 09/11/2014
09/17/2014 09/17/2014 09/25/2014
10/14/2014

48 MEMORANDUM regarding 45 Partial MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by United States Bureau of Prisons. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 8/11/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
49 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/11/14 re: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 44) and the Bureau of Prisons' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 45) 46 . The Motion is GRANTED and plaintiff has to and including September 4, 2014, in which to file her responses to both motions to dismiss (44 and 45). (bsimm) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
50 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 45 Partial MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 44 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction /Personal Jurisdiction by Plaintiff Scott Hill. (Owen, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
51 MEMORANDUM regarding 50 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 45 Partial MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 44 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction /P filed by Scott Hill. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/3/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
52 MINUTE ORDER granting 50 Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Bureau of Prisons' Partial Motion to Dismiss by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/3/14.(dkals, ) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
53 Joint MOTION for Protective Order Re Confidential Information Disclosed in Discovery by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
54 MEMORANDUM regarding 53 Joint MOTION for Protective Order Re Confidential Information Disclosed in Discovery filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, United States Bureau of Prisons, Charles A. Daniels, S. Brown, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, Paul A. Laird, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/11/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
55 MINUTE ORDER granting 53 Motion for Protective Order by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/17/14. Text Only Entry (bnbsec, ) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
56 PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/17/14. (bsimm, ) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
57 AMENDED COMPLAINT and Jury Demand against Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons, Michael (I) K. Nalley, filed by Scott Hill. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Notice, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Psychology Records, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Transfer Summary, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Transfer Recommendation, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Jan. 20, 2011 Ad−Rem, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Kite, # 7 Exhibit 7 − St. Thomas More Records, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Clinical Records, # 9 Exhibit 9 − Memo for Chief Executive Officers)(Owen, Elisabeth) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
58 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 57 Amended Complaint,, by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 10/14/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 8 of 11

10/14/2014
10/14/2014 10/15/2014 10/27/2014 10/28/2014
10/28/2014
01/28/2015 01/28/2015 01/28/2015
01/29/2015
01/29/2015

59 MEMORANDUM regarding 58 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 57 Amended Complaint,, filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, United States Bureau of Prisons, Charles A. Daniels, S. Brown, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/14/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
60 MINUTE ORDER granting 58 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/14/14. Defendants shall answer the plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by 11/13/14. (dkals, ) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
61 ORDER denying without prejudice as moot 44 Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and 45 The Bureau of Prisons' Partial Motion to Dismiss by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/15/14.(dkals, ) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
62 Unopposed MOTION to Stay , Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to First Amended Complaint by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
63 MEMORANDUM regarding 62 Unopposed MOTION to Stay Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to First Amended Complaint filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, United States Bureau of Prisons, Charles A. Daniels, S. Brown, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, Paul A. Laird, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/28/14. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
64 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/28/14. The Unopposed Motion for Stay and for Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint 62 is GRANTED. All proceedings are STAYED to and including January 28, 2015; the defendants shall respond to the Complaint on or before February 11, 2015; and parties shall file a status report at the earlier of reaching an agreement to resolve the case or expiration of the stay addressing the status of the case. (bsimm, ) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
65 NOTICE of Change of Firm and Contact Information by Plaintiff Scott Hill (Owen, Elisabeth) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
66 Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Michael (I) K. Nalley, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Padden, Amy) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
67 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 57 Amended Complaint,, , Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Michael (I) K. Nalley, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
68 MEMORANDUM regarding 67 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 57 Amended Complaint,, Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, United States Bureau of Prisons, Michael (I) K. Nalley, Charles A. Daniels, S. Brown, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, Paul A. Laird, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/29/15. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
69 MINUTE ORDER granting 67 Unopposed Motion for Stay and for Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/29/15. All proceedings are stayed, and the defendants shall respond to

Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 9 of 11

02/09/2015 02/19/2015 02/23/2015 02/25/2015
02/25/2015
02/26/2015 03/25/2015 03/26/2015

the First Amended Complaint by 3/2/15. (dkals, ) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
70 REASSIGNING MAGISTRATE JUDGE. This action is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang, upon her appointment. All future pleadings should reference Magistrate Judge Wang at the end of the civil action number (such as 15−cv−00001−REB−NYW). Unless otherwise ordered, the dates and times for all previously scheduled matters will be maintained and will now be handled by Magistrate Judge Wang in Courtroom C−205. Her chambers are located in Room C−254 of the Byron G. Rogers Courthouse. Her telephone number is 303−335−2600. (Text only entry) (kweck) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
71 Joint MOTION for Referral for Settlement Conference by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Michael (I) K. Nalley, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
72 ORDER denying 71 Motion for Referral for Settlement Conference. Good cause for a judicially facilitated settlement has not been shown. Although the parties have had settlement discussions, there is no showing that they have sought private mediation or are unable to do so. As a consequence, the Motion is DENIED. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 2/23/15. Text Only Entry(msksec, ) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
73 Unopposed MOTION to Stay re 57 Amended Complaint,, , Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 57 Amended Complaint,, , Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 69 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond,, Order on Motion to Stay, (in the Alternative) by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
74 MEMORANDUM regarding 73 Unopposed MOTION to Stay re 57 Amended Complaint,, Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 57 Amended Complaint,, Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 69 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond,, Order on Motion to Stay, (in the Alternative) filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, United States Bureau of Prisons, Charles A. Daniels, S. Brown, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, Paul A. Laird, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Nina Y Wang by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 2/25/15. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
75 MINUTE ORDER granting 73 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative to Amend Docket Number 69 by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 2/26/15. This matter is stayed to and including 4/2/15, and Defendants shall answer by 4/2/15. (dkals, ) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
76 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 57 Amended Complaint,, , Unopposed MOTION to Stay by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
77 MEMORANDUM regarding 76 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 57 Amended Complaint,, Unopposed MOTION to Stay filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, United States Bureau of Prisons, Charles A. Daniels, S. Brown, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, Paul A. Laird, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 3/26/15. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 10 of 11

03/26/2015 04/07/2015 04/08/2015
04/09/2015 04/29/2015 04/30/2015
05/02/2015 05/02/2015 05/29/2015 05/29/2015 06/01/2015 06/01/2015

78 MINUTE ORDER granting 76 Unopposed Motion for An Additional 10−Day Stay and Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 3/26/15. Defendants shall respond to the First Amended Complaint by 4/13/15. (dkals, ) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
79 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 57 Amended Complaint,, , MOTION to Stay by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
80 MEMORANDUM regarding 79 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 57 Amended Complaint,, MOTION to Stay filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, United States Bureau of Prisons, Charles A. Daniels, S. Brown, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, Paul A. Laird, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 4/8/15. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
81 MINUTE ORDER granting 79 Unopposed Motion for An Additional Stay and Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 4/9/15. Defendants shall respond to the First Amended Complaint by 4/30/15. (dkals, ) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
82 Joint MOTION for Order to Set Deadline to File Dismissal Papers, Joint MOTION to Vacate Deadline to Respond to First Amended Complaint by Defendants Anthony, Diane Borges, S. Brown, Mark Carter, Charles A. Daniels, Richard Derr, William Hutchings, B. Janusz, T. Javernick, K. Johnson, Paul A. Laird, G. Lyde, Daniel Severn, United States Bureau of Prisons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Padden, Amy) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
83 MEMORANDUM regarding 82 Joint MOTION for Order to Set Deadline to File Dismissal PapersJoint MOTION to Vacate Deadline to Respond to First Amended Complaint filed by Anthony, G. Lyde, Mark Carter, Richard Derr, B. Janusz, United States Bureau of Prisons, Charles A. Daniels, S. Brown, K. Johnson, William Hutchings, Daniel Severn, Paul A. Laird, T. Javernick, Diane Borges. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 4/30/15. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
84 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 82 Motion for Order. Parties shall submit dismissal papers on or before 6/1/2015; a Status Conference is set for 6/12/2015 10:30 AM in Courtroom C205 before Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 5/2/15.(nywlc1) (Entered: 05/02/2015)
85 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Dismissal Papers are due by 6/1/2015, and Defendants have until 6/8/15 to file an Answer to the First Amended Complaint, pursuant to 84 Order. Text Only Entry (dkals, ) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
86 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Scott Hill. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit 2−Second Amended Complaint (Redlined))(Owen, Elisabeth) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
87 MEMORANDUM regarding 86 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Amended Complaint filed by Scott Hill. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 5/29/15. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
88 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 06/01/15 granting 86 Motion to File Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court is instructed to accept [#86−1] for filing as Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. The Status Conference set for June 12, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. shall remain on the courts calendar, to be vacated upon the Parties filing of a Stipulation to Dismiss this action. (nmarb, ) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
89 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against United States Bureau of Prisons, United States of America, filed by Scott Hill.(nmarb, ) (Entered: 06/01/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-3404 As of: 10/11/2015 09:56 PM MDT 11 of 11

06/01/2015 06/01/2015 06/02/2015

90 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Case by Defendants United States Bureau of Prisons, United States of America. (Padden, Amy) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
91 MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to 90 Stipulation of Dismissal of Case, the Status Conference set for June 12, 2015 is hereby VACATED. By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 5/25/15. Text Only Entry (nywlc1) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
92 Civil Case Terminated pursuant to the stipulation to dismiss filed in this case on 6/1/15. Text Only Entry (dkals, ) (Entered: 06/02/2015)

 
 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03404-MSK-NYW
SCOTT HILL a/kla SAMANTHA HILL
Plaintiff, v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, a United States agency, MICHAEL K. NALLEY, Regional Director, North Central Region, Bureau of Prisons, sued in his individual capacity, CHARLES A. DANIELS, Warden of the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DR. MARK CARTER, Staff Psychologist at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DR. DANIEL SEVERN, Staff Psychiatrist at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, WILLIAM HUTCHINGS, captain at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, LAMONT ANTHONY, lieutenant at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, DIANE BORGES, counselor at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in her individual capacity, RICHARD DERR, unit manager at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, BERNIE JANUSZ, case manager at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, GILBERT LYDE, unit manager at the United States Penitentiary -Florence, sued in his individual capacity, TODD JAVERNICK, CMC at the United States Penitentiary -Florence, sued in his individual capacity, STEVE BROWN, special investigative agent at the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity, and KEVIN JOHNSON, associate warden of the United States Penitentiary- Florence, sued in his individual capacity.
Defendants.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1715515.2

It is hereby stipulated by and between Plaintiff Samantha Hill and Defendants United States Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), and Michael K. Nalley, Charles A. Daniels, Dr. Mark Carter, Dr. Daniel Severn, William Hutchings, Lamont Anthony, Diane Borges, Richard Derr, Bernie Janusz, Gilbert Lyde, Todd Javernick, Steve Brown and Kevin Johnson (collectively, the "Bivens Defendants"), by and through their respective attorneys, as follows:
1. The parties do hereby agree to settle and compromise the above-entitled action under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
2. Defendant BOP agrees to the following terms to settle the injunctive and declaratory relief claims in this case:
3. Defendant BOP agrees to make an individualized determination pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Part 524 (Classification oflnmates), in conjunction with 28 C.F.R. § 115.42, regarding housing Plaintiff in safe housing appropriate for a person with her risk characteristics as defined in 28 C.F.R. § 115.41. BOP agrees that for the remainder of Plaintiffs sentence while she is housed at Butner, Plaintiff will be housed in a wet cell with a pre-screened cellmate unless no wet cell is available due to the medical necessity of assigning those wet cells to other inmates. For the purposes of this agreement, the pre-screening process will include giving serious consideration to Plaintiffs views regarding the proposed cellmate as provided in 28 C.F.R. § 115.42(e), and making a written note in Plaintiffs file regarding any objection made by Plaintiff to the proposed inmate. BOP acknowledges that Plaintiff has expressed concerns regarding her current cellmate, and that BOP has not been able to provide alternative housing options to which Plaintiff does not object as ofthe date of this Settlement. In light of the current circumstances, BOP agrees to continue to seek cellmate alternatives for Plaintiff with the aim of identifying a new cellmate to whom Plaintiff does not object. BOP further agrees that BOP will re-evaluate

1715515.2

2

the current or any future assigned cellmate promptly upon notice from Plaintiff that the cellmate has asserted threats against Plaintiff, or has otherwise made Plaintiff concerned for her mental or physical health. For purposes of this agreement, "promptly" means no later than seven days after Plaintiff notifies BOP of the threats or of Plaintiffs concern for her mental or physical health. Plaintiff agrees that she will provide notice as contemplated in this paragraph in writing.
4. Defendant BOP agrees to continue housing Plaintiff at Butner for the remainder of Plaintiffs incarceration, unless she becomes eligible to be transferred to a lower security institution or a Residential Re-entry Center; she becomes eligible for state placement; she is transferred to a medical referral center; her placement is reassessed pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 115.42(d); or operational concerns preclude her continued placement at Butner. In light of Plaintiffs risk profile, Defendant BOP agrees not to transfer Plaintiff to any United States Penitentiary, unless Ms. Hill engages in conduct that would constitute a prohibited act or misconduct as defined by Program Statement 5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program, in which case she may be subject to sanctions in accordance with Program Statement 5270.09 including a greater security or disciplinary transfer in accordance with BOP policy. If either operational concerns preclude her continued placement at Butner or if Ms. Hill engages in conduct that warrants a greater security or disciplinary transfer, Defendant BOP agrees to notify Plaintiffs counsel, Elisabeth L. Owen and Sarah D. Hartley, prior to the transfer in order to allow Plaintiff to invoke the alternative dispute resolution procedures as set forth in paragraph 26 below.
5. Plaintiff acknowledges and agrees that this agreement in no way vitiates her obligation to adhere to all BOP policies, rules, and/or regulations, including refraining from engaging in conduct that would constitute a prohibited act or misconduct as defined by Program Statement 5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program. Plaintiff acknowledges and agrees that, in the

1715515.2

3

event that she engages in conduct that would constitute a prohibited act, or misconduct as defined by Program Statement 5270.09, she may be subject to sanctions in accordance with Program Statement 5270.09.
6. This agreement does not override the BOP's statutory authority contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), and implemented through Program Statement 5100.08, Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification, to transfer Plaintiff if determined necessary in an emergent circumstance, such as in the case of a natural disaster, safety concerns, or other exigent circumstances (such as a serious event implicating institution security), to an appropriate facility that meets her safety, security, and programming needs and is consistent with the BOP's mission to protect society.
7. Defendant BOP agrees to re-evaluate the propriety of housing Plaintiff at a male facility periodically, including within six months from the date this agreement is signed by all parties and every six months thereafter, as provided in 28 C.P.R. § 115.42(d).
8. Defendant BOP agrees that any bodily searches or pat-downs performed on Plaintiff will be conducted in accordance with BOP policy regarding such searches or pat-downs as determined through negotiations with the employee union and in accordance with the provisions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
9. Defendant BOP agrees to include a copy of this Settlement Agreement in the FOIA exempt portion of Plaintiffs central file, as well as a copy of the notification attached as Exhibit A.
10. Defendant BOP agrees that Plaintiff has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and agrees to continue to provide adequate medical and psychological treatment for Plaintiffs gender dysphoria. Defendant BOP further agrees to modify those treatments as necessary to

1715515.2

4

ensure adequate treatment for Plaintiffs condition. Defendant BOP agrees, at a minimum, to continue Plaintiffs current course of hormone therapy and to initiate and continue finasteride, as long as these medications are clinically indicated and are available to the BOP and there is no contraindication for prescribing them to Plaintiff
11. Defendant BOP agrees to provide psychological treatment consistent with the community standards of care for gender dysphoria, post-traumatic stress disorder and rape trauma syndrome, and in accordance with the treatment plan adopted for Plaintiff as of the date of this agreement, subject to any clinically indicated modifications. This will include the offering of talk therapy sessions. These sessions will be offered on a bi-weekly basis, unless unforeseen exigent circumstances prevent the offering of a bi-weekly session, for as long as they are clinically indicated. The BOP agrees to re-evaluate the frequency of Plaintiffs therapy sessions on a regular basis, with the first such re-evaluation within two months of the execution of this agreement. The first re-evaluation will determine if weekly therapy is clinically indicated; subsequent re-evaluations will determine whether the same, more, or less frequent therapy is clinically indicated. Defendant BOP agrees to provide Plaintiff a copy of Plaintiffs records indicating such treatment re-evaluations within seven business days of Plaintiffs written request for such records. Plaintiff shall be permitted to request a therapist with whom her individual therapy sessions will be conducted from amongst the therapists employed to provide mental health services to prisoners at FCI Butner I, and that request will be considered in light of available resources and treatment needs and honored unless it is not feasible in light of those considerations.
12. Defendant BOP agrees to have Plaintiffs treating medical professionals periodically and at least once every six months evaluate the sufficiency ofPlaintiffs gender

1715515.2

5

dysphoria treatment protocol to determine if additional treatments, such as sexual reassignment surgery, electrolysis, speech therapy, or other treatments consistent with the community standards of care, are clinically indicated. Defendant BOP agrees to provide a report of such protocol re-evaluations to Plaintiff within seven business days of such evaluations upon request by Plaintiff
13. Defendant BOP agrees to offer to Plaintiff for purchase the female commissary items listed in Exhibit B attached hereto. Defendant will add to the Special Purchase Order ("SPO") list for transgender inmates the items on the list attached hereto as Exhibit B. Defendant BOP will further consider whether the following additional items pose any security or safety concerns: hair clips, emery board, and female shirts/pants/sweatshirts. If these items are approved, the BOP will add those to the SPO within three months of the effective date of this agreement. If Plaintiff wishes to order an item that is not on the attached pre-approval list, Plaintiff agrees to submit a BP-8 to the appropriate BOP staff member to obtain the requested item. If Plaintiff is not able to obtain the requested item via a BP-8, Plaintiff will pursue the BOP administrative remedy process to request that she be permitted to purchase the requested item.
14. Ms. Hill is permitted to dress in her preferred gender role, including female undergarments (bra and underwear), by wearing female clothing items available via the Transgender SPO commissary list. The BOP agrees that it will not take any disciplinary action against Ms. Hill for wearing female clothing, hair, and cosmetic products that are available via the Transgender SPO commissary list. Further, the BOP agrees that it will not take any disciplinary action against Ms. Hill for wearing homemade cosmetic products unless her use of

1715515.2

6

such products constitutes "wearing a disguise or mask" as prohibited by 28 C.P.R.§ 541.3 or otherwise raises a security concern.
15. Defendant BOP will address Plaintiffs request that she be provided with the means to cover or eliminate facial hair. That request may be addressed by one of the following methods, or by another alternative option that is available at FCI Butner: allowing Plaintiff to purchase foundation (base makeup), providing Plaintiff with electrolysis hair removal, or providing Plaintiff with hair removal using the No!No!® or similar device. Butner will evaluate these options and determine which is appropriate for Plaintiff within 30 days, and will take steps to provide one of them no later than 90 days, of the effective date of this agreement.
16. Upon execution of this agreement, Plaintiff will dismiss the Bivens Defendants with prejudice and will file an amended complaint that contains an injunctive relief claim against the BOP and a negligence claim for failure to protect against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the "FTCA"). Plaintiff will dismiss the failure to treat claim and not reassert it in the amended complaint. Defendants will consent to the filing of the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
17. The undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorney will enter an appearance on behalf of the United States, but the United States will neither answer nor move to dismiss the amended complaint.
18. After the complaint is amended, Plaintiff will sign a standard FTCA stipulation and a stipulation of dismissal. The United States will pay $70,000 from the Judgment Fund to settle the FTCA claim.
19. Execution of this Agreement by the Parties shall constitute a complete release and bar to Plaintiff of any and all causes of action, claims, or liens, known or unknown to Plaintiff,

1715515.2

7

by reason of, or arising from the events, circumstances, or incidents giving rise to this lawsuit. The execution of this Agreement shall not, however, preclude Plaintiff from asserting claims under this Agreement or claims arising after the date of this Agreement related to the same or similar circumstances or events.
20. In conjunction with this Agreement, the parties further agree and stipulate that they will file, within three (3) business days of execution of the Agreement, a Stipulation for Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), dismissing this action with prejudice. The parties further agree and stipulate that the United States will prepare and submit to the U.S. Treasury the paperwork for payment to Plaintiff by the Judgment Fund within three (3) business days after the entry of the stipulation of dismissal.
21. This Agreement shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the United States, the Defendants, or on the part of any ofDefendants' agents, servants, employees, or instrumentalities.
22. Each party will pay its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in conjunction with the above-entitled matter, except as set forth in Paragraph 19, above. There shall be no motion by any of the parties for the payment of such costs, expenses, or fees.
23. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under any present or future laws, such provision shall be fully severable, and the remaining provisions shall constitute the parties' agreement.
24. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, and each counterpart when taken with the other executed counterpart shall constitute a binding agreement among the Parties as of the date of the last executed counterpart.

1715515.2

8

25. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and upon their heirs, assigns, agents, successors, and personal representatives.
26. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with federal law. IfPlaintiffbelieves that the BOP is not in substantial compliance with any injunctive relief provision of this Agreement, Plaintiffs counsel shall notify the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado in writing of the specific reasons why they believe BOP is not in compliance. The BOP shall investigate and respond in writing within 15 calendar days. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute after Plaintiff receives the BOP's response, the parties will endeavor to obtain, within 15 days, a private mediation with either former U.S. Magistrate Judge Boland at JAG, Inc. (or another mutually acceptable private mediator) or a settlement conference with the assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge. If the parties are unable to timely schedule such a mediation or settlement conference, or if the dispute is not resolved by the mediation or settlement conference, Plaintiff may file a motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the BOP has breached the settlement agreement. If the Court finds that there has been such a breach, the Parties agree that Plaintiffs remedy will be reinstatement of the injunctive relief claims brought in the lawsuit. Plaintiff retains the right to amend the injunctive relief allegations, and the BOP reserves any defenses to the claims that it may have.
27. Except as otherwise set forth herein, this Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties, and embodies and expresses the entire intent of the Parties with regard to the matters set forth herein. This Agreement supersedes, merges, and replaces all prior or contemporaneous understandings, negotiations, offers, promises, representations and agreements between the Parties or their attorneys to the extent such prior understandings, negotiations and agreements are inconsistent herewith.

1715515.2

9

28. The term of the injunctive portion of this agreement (i.e., paragraphs 3-15) is two years. This agreement will automatically expire two years after it is signed by the last of all parties below.

1715515.2

10

PLAINTIFF

Elisabeth L. Owen, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff
Sarah D. Hartley, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff

Dated: - - - - -, 2015 Dated: - - - - -, 20 15

DEFENDANTS
AmyL. Padden Assistant U.S. Attorney Deputy Chief, Civil Division Counsel for Defendants
Christopher B. Synsvoll Supervisory Attorney Attorney for the Bureau of Prisons

Dated: - - - - -, 2015 Dated: - - - - -, 20 15

1715515.2

10

PLAINTIFF
Samantha Hill, Plaintiff
Elisabeth L. Owen, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff Sarah D. Hartley, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff

Dated: - - - - -, 2015
Dated: - - - - -, 2015 Dated: _ _ _ _ _, 2015

DEFENDANTS
Amy L. Padden Assistant U.S. Attorney Deputy Chief, Civil Division Counsel for Defendants
Christopher B. Synsvoll Supervisory Attorney Attorney for the Bureau of Prisons

Dated: - - - - -, 2015
Dated: _ _ _ _ _, 2015

1715515.2

11

28. The term of the injunctive portion of this agreement (i.e., paragraphs 3-15) is two years. This agreement will automatically expire two years after it is signed by the last of all parties below. PLAINTIFF

Samantha Hill, Plaintiff
Elisabeth L. Owen, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff ~
arah L. Hartley, sq. Counsel for Plain iff

Dated:

'2015

Dated:

2015

Dated:~ '2015

DEFENDANTS
Amy L. Padden Assistant U.S. Attorney Deputy Chief, Civil Division Counsel for Defendants
Christopher B. Synsvoll · Supervisory Attorney Attorney for the Bureau of Prisons

Dated: _ _ _ _ _, 2015 Dated: - - - - -, 2015

1715515.2

10

28. The term of the injunctive portion of this agreement (i c .. paragraphs 3-1 5) is two years. This agreement will automatically expire two years after it is signed by the last of all parties below. PLAINTIFF

Samantha Hill, Plainti IT
r::lisabcth L. Ov/Cll, Esq. Counsel f()l' Plaintiff
·-- ·~
Sarah D. Hartley, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff

Dated: - - - - '2015

Dated:

' 2.015

Da~d: ----------.2015

DEFENDANTS

1\my L. Padden Assistant U.S. Attorney Deputy Chief~ Civil Division Counsel for Defendants

-'-)/ c>;;a/

<{~-4_//
'{5-e;;r:L:-;//t:c/f'Z£"-?

;;-~

/ ci~~istoi~hc~-B--~Synsvol--1-· I l/

Supervisory Attomcy Attorney for the Bureau of Prisons

Dated: S/:2'?____,2015

1715515 2

10

Please take notice that Scott Hill is a transgendered prisoner who identifies as female and should be referred to by her preferred name, Samantha Hill, and female pronouns (e.g., "she" and "her").
EXHIBIT A

Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the BOP will ensure the availability of the following items, or comparable items, for Plaintiff to purchase through the commissary: Items to be maintained on or added to the current Butner Transgender SPO Commissary List:
• Women's watch • Lady Speed Stick deodorant • Oil ofOlay • Infusium 23 shampoo and conditioner • Women's Razor Ladies Personal Twin Blade • Cotton Swispers • Hanes bra • Hanes panties • Women's Converse and Reebok athletic shoes Items to be maintained on or added to the current Butner General Population Commissary List:
• Tweezers
• Pumice stone
• Shower cap • Pony tail holders • Vent hair brush • No handle brush
• Next 1 styling gel
• Pantene shampoo and conditioner • Noxema skin cream • Thermal shirts and pants • Sweatshirts
• Freestyle sunglasses
EXHIBITB