Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00083/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00083-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOMINIC (AKA DIAMOND) VARGAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-000083-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

(Doc. 63) 

Plaintiff Dominic Vargas is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims under the Eighth 

and Fourteenth Amendments. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 27, 2024, Defendants moved for a stay of these proceedings. (Doc. 63.) Plaintiff 

filed an opposition on July 22, 2024. (Doc. 67.) 

Defendants’ Motion

Defendants argue a stay of these proceedings for 120 days “or whatever length of time the 

Court deems appropriate” will allow time for Plaintiff to submit to phalloplasty preoperative 

procedures, including a hysterectomy. (Doc. 63 at 5.) Following that procedure, Defendants 

indicate they would provide the Court with an update concerning Plaintiff’s medical status and 

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 72 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

will likely request an order continuing the stay until the phalloplasty procedure has been 

performed. (Id.) Defendants contends a stay of the proceedings and discovery is appropriate given 

the action’s procedural posture “and the fact that Plaintiff’s requested relief for [gender affirming 

surgery] has been approved and is pending completion.” (Id.) Defendants state a discovery and 

scheduling order has not yet been issued,1and indicate Plaintiff has received a mammoplasty 

procedure, and, in preparation for a phalloplasty, Plaintiff must undergo a hysterectomy and 

electrolysis. 2(Id.) Defendants assert the hysterectomy is tentatively scheduled for July 2024. 

(Id.) Further, Defendants maintain the “timeframe within which the phalloplasty surgery will be 

scheduled is determined by factors outside CDCR’s control,” noting a need for Plaintiff to 

recover from the hysterectomy and to complete electrolysis, and the outside treating surgeon’s 

ability to schedule and perform the surgery. (Id. at 5-6.) Defendants contend that once surgery is 

completed, Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief will be moot. (Id. at 6.) Defendants maintain 

discovery and litigation of the injunctive relief claim would be a waste of resources “because 

Plaintiff’s approved request is pending completion.” (Id.) Additionally, they assert a stay of these 

proceedings would promote judicial economy and efficiency by eliminating the risk of moot 

proceedings. (Id.) 

Next, Defendants note that Plaintiff’s operative complaint includes a claim for declaratory 

relief concerning the constitutionality of CDCR’s gender affirming surgery (GAS) policies. (Doc. 

63 at 6.) They argue further litigation of that claim, including whether Plaintiff has standing to 

pursue the claim after completion of GAS, will likely require further briefing concerning whether 

a case or controversy exists justifying declaratory relief. (Id.) They request this action be stayed at 

least 120 days to narrow those issues. (Id.) 

Defendants’ motion is supported by the Declaration of E. Joelson, M.D. (Doc. 63-1.) Dr. 

Joelson is a Chief Physician and Surgeon for California Correctional Health Care Services 

1

In fact, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on May 9, 2024, prior to the filing of Defendants’ 

motion. (See Doc. 61.) 

2

In a filing dated August 7, 2024, Plaintiff acknowledges a hysterectomy had been performed and electrolysis was to 

occur on August 8, 2024. (See Doc. 69.) 

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 72 Filed 09/13/24 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

(CCHCS) and is the Chair of the Gender Affirming Surgery Review Committee (GASRC). (Id. at 

1, ¶ 2.) As Chair, Dr. Joelson is familiar with the process for reviewing GAS requests. (Id.) 

Following a request by Plaintiff in August 2019 for GAS, including bilateral reduction 

mammoplasty, hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, and procedures for phalloplasty, to include 

urethroplasty, scrotoplasty, and placement of testicular prostheses, on October 29, 2019, GASRC 

recommended to the Statewide Medical Authorization Review Team (SMART) that Plaintiff’s 

request be denied due to a mental health contraindication. (Id. at 2, ¶ 3.) SMART denied 

Plaintiff’s request on November 19, 2019. (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted another request in 

October 2020. (Id. at 2, ¶ 4.) GASRC recommended to SMART that a reduction mammoplasty be 

approved and that masculinizing bottom surgeries be denied pending full assessment and control 

of Plaintiff’s kidney disease. (Id.) SMART granted Plaintiff’s request for mammoplasty on 

January 5, 2021. (Id.) The mammoplasty was performed by Dr. Thomas Satterwhite on October 

3, 2022, and Plaintiff continues to receive treatment for bilateral nipple deformities. (Id., ¶ 5.) In 

April 2022, Plaintiff submitted a request for the following procedures: hysterectomy, salpingooophorectomy, phalloplasty, urethroplasty, scrotoplasty, and placement of testicular prostheses. 

(Id., ¶ 6.) Finding no medical contraindications, those procedures were approved on June 6, 2023. 

(Id.) 

Dr. Joelson states Plaintiff must undergo a hysterectomy and electrolysis in preparation 

for a phalloplasty. (Doc. 63-1 at 2, ¶ 7.) The hysterectomy is tentatively planned for July 2024 

and Plaintiff has consulted with a physician regarding the need for electrolysis, but the process 

has not yet begun. (Id. at 2-3, ¶ 7.) Dr. Joelson states there “are limited contractors who perform 

electrolysis, and not all of them do electrolysis on the genital region,” meaning the eight to 12 

electrolysis sessions required “could take one to two years to complete.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 7.) 

Dr. Joelson indicates that because of the complexity of phalloplasty and its high 

complication rate, CCHCS has encountered difficulty finding a surgeon willing to perform the 

procedure for CDCR patients. (Doc. 63-1 at 3, ¶ 8.) Difficulties include significant planning and 

preparation, and a prison setting creating challenges related to transportation, scheduling, and 

post-surgical care. (Id.) In late 2022, CCHCS learned Michael Safir, M.D., a physician located in 

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 72 Filed 09/13/24 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Los Angeles, was one such potential surgeon. (Id., ¶ 9.) After extensive discussions, including 

locating credential appropriate surgery centers and long-term acute care facilities to provide three 

to four weeks of post-surgical care, in June 2024, CCHCS contracted with Dr. Safir to perform 

phalloplasties for CDCR patients. (Id.) Finally, Dr. Joelson states CDCR is unable to estimate a 

date for Plaintiff’s phalloplasty due to the many pre-phalloplasty procedures required, 

unanticipated institutional issues that may cause delay, and the potential for delays associated 

with scheduling Plaintiff’s surgery with an outside non-CDCR surgery center. (Id., ¶ 10.) 

Plaintiff’s Opposition

Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion arguing “CDCR is not compliant and [his] claims 

are not moot.” (Doc. 67 at 1.) He maintains CDCR is delaying the necessary medical procedures 

and notes it “took years to gain approval for the hysterectomy to be performed.” (Id.) Plaintiff 

contends he has been advised “there is a delay in scheduling electrolysis which will risk delaying 

the phalloplasty procedure.” (Id.) He contends Dr. Joelson’s statement that “the delay is due to 

‘limited contractors who perform electrolysis and not all of them do electrolysis on the genital 

region’” is “not logical” because Plaintiff does not require electrolysis in “any genital areas.” (Id.) 

Rather, Plaintiff maintains the electrolysis “is for the thigh which is where the skin will be 

harvested for the phalloplasty procedure.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends the “fact that the chair of the 

[GASRC] is unaware of the medical orders and that a female to male transgender does not get 

genital electrolysis is a concern but speaks to one of the key claims in [his lawsuit: that] CDCR is 

treating those transitioning into females different than those transitioning into males.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff argues the fact procedures are now being approved does not support a stay. (Doc. 

67 at 1.) He maintains it “will be months to years before CDCR is fully compliant, especially with 

the continuing delays with medical orders.” (Id.) Citing to two CDCR inmate patients who are 

transitioning from male to female and who have not encountered delays for electrolysis treatment, 

as compared to another CDCR patient like Plaintiff who is transitioning from female to male and 

has also encountered “significant delays in getting procedures,” Plaintiff questions Defendants’ 

assertion that delays are unavoidable. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff states Defendants’ argument “that 

another delay was caused by [his] chronic kidney disease ... does not [with]stand scrutiny” 

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 72 Filed 09/13/24 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

because he has received chronic care for that condition for years and is assessed several times per 

year. (Id. at 2.) 

Next, Plaintiff contends the “discovery phase of this case which is already scheduled will 

reveal these facts through the Q&A forms which is being substituted for depositions that would 

be performed by an attorney.” (Doc. 67 at 2.) He states the “Q&A will allow the inmates to detail 

their treatment so that [he] may highlight the discrepancies in their treatment versus others” and 

allow “the medical staff to confirm the status” of Plaintiff’s chronic illnesses, including chronic 

kidney disease. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff contends the “Q&A will allow [him] to ask and counter the 

[Defendants’] explanation for why procedures were delayed and why their treatment was handled 

in star[k] contrast to how other gender reassignment cases were handled by CDCR across the 

department and not just within [the Central California Women’s Facility].” (Id.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Applicable Legal Standards

The power to stay proceedings “is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936). To 

evaluate whether to stay an action, the Court must the weigh competing interests that will be 

affected by the grant or refusal to grant a stay, including: (1) the possible damage which may 

result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 

required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or 

complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55)). 

The party seeking a stay “bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 

U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). “If there is even a fair possibility that the 

stay ... will work damage to someone else,” the party seeking the stay “must make out a clear case 

of hardship or inequity.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. The decision whether to grant or deny a stay is 

committed to the discretion of the Court. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. 

Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a 

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 72 Filed 09/13/24 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

greater showing is required to justify it. Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The 

Court should “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” 

Id.

Analysis

Here, the Court has considered the parties’ positions regarding possible damage which 

may result from granting a stay, the hardship or inequity a party may suffer in being required to 

go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or complicating of 

issues, proof, and questions of law. On balance, the Court will deny the request for a stay of these 

proceedings.

First, Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain GAS have been extensive and lengthy. The fact the 

mammoplasty and hysterectomy procedures have now been completed, and that Plaintiff is 

apparently now undergoing, or has undergone, electrolysis, still leaves the phalloplasty. While 

Plaintiff has been approved for phalloplasty, Defendants cannot provide a time estimate for its 

completion, and the complexities and potential for significant delay of that procedure cannot be 

overlooked. The possible damage to Plaintiff weighs against granting a stay of these proceedings. 

CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268; Dependable Highway Exp., 498 F.3d at 1066; see Macias v. 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 1:18-cv-01730-NONE-JLT (PC), 

2021 WL 4991646, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2021) (“the fact Plaintiff has received approval for a 

bilateral reduction mammoplasty ‘does not “establish[] that there is no effective relief remaining 

that the court could provide”’”). 

Second, the Court finds any hardship or inequity Defendants would suffer without a stay 

does not outweigh the potential damage presented to Plaintiff. While Defendants will be required 

to continue to engage in discovery, defending this lawsuit, in its present posture, does not 

constitute a clear case of hardship or inequity. CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268; Landis, 299 U.S. at 

255. 

Third, the Court is not persuaded that a stay at this juncture benefits the orderly course of 

justice. While Plaintiff has now undergone several procedures relating directly to the relief he 

seeks, the fact the phalloplasty has only been approved, where ensuring the surgery is completed 

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 72 Filed 09/13/24 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

may take years—particularly where it took years to locate a single available surgeon and the 

necessary facilities—serves to complicate the issue of resolving the claims in this matter. CMAX, 

300 F.2d at 268. 

Lastly, and significantly, the length of any stay sought is unclear. Defendants seek a stay 

of 120 days to allow time for Plaintiff to submit to phalloplasty preoperative procedures, 

including a hysterectomy. Further, Defendants indicate they would seek to extend the stay beyond 

that point concerning the phalloplasty procedure. The “phalloplasty preoperative procedures” are 

now complete (hysterectomy) or underway (electrolysis). However, as noted above, the 

phalloplasty procedure itself has not yet been scheduled and given the complexities involved with 

scheduling that procedure and seeing it completed, any stay appears certain to be especially long 

or indefinite. Yong, 208 F.3d at 1119. That uncertainty weighs against a stay of these proceedings. 

In sum, this Court concludes a stay of these proceedings is not warranted. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Defendants’ motion to stay these 

proceedings (Doc. 63) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB Document 72 Filed 09/13/24 Page 7 of 7