Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02726/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02726-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

SHILOH QUINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 3:14-CV-02726 JST (NJV)

ORDER REGARDING 

IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT 

The parties attended a telephonic conference before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 

May 25, 2016, to discuss their disputes with regard to the implementation of the parties’ settlement 

agreement. (Dkt. No. 72.) The court, having considered the submissions and arguments of the 

parties, HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Defendants shall schedule Plaintiff’s surgery with Dr. Thomas Satterwhite of Brownstein 

& Crane Surgical Services (“Brownstein & Crane”) on his earliest available date, which 

currently is December 9, 2016. In addition, Defendants shall consult with Dr. Curtis 

Crane of Brownstein & Crane and Dr. Marci Bowers to determine if either has an earlier 

available date to perform the surgery, in which case the surgery will be scheduled with 

that surgeon instead. 

2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding scheduling of a consultation between Plaintiff 

and the surgeon. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on the scheduling of the 

consultation by June 30, 2016, the parties shall schedule a further telephonic conference 

Case 3:14-cv-02726-JST Document 74 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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

with the court. 

3. The parties shall continue to meet and confer regarding CDCR’s proposed changes to the 

property policies, with the following guidance from the court:

a. The parties should meet and confer to discuss the language in the settlement 

agreement, which provides that “inmates identified by medical or CDCR personnel 

as transgender or having symptoms of gender dysphoria” will have access to 

property items pursuant to the revised policies;

b. The policy should be revised to allow “inmates identified by medical or CDCR 

personnel as transgender or having symptoms of gender dysphoria” housed in male 

institutions at least some access to the following items currently only permitted in 

female institutions: Pajama/Nightgown, Robe, Sandals, Scarf, T-Shirts, and 

Walking Shoes;

c. The policy should be revised to allow “inmates identified by medical or CDCR 

personnel as transgender or having symptoms of gender dysphoria” housed in male 

institutions access to chains/necklaces in the same manner as inmates housed in 

female institutions;

d. In addition, the policy should be revised to allow “inmates identified by medical or 

CDCR personnel as transgender or having symptoms of gender dysphoria” housed 

in male institutions supervised access to the following items currently only 

permitted in female institutions: pumice stone, emery boards, and curling irons;

e. The court believes that the following items currently allowed only permitted in 

female institutions pose significant safety and security concerns that may justify a 

policy that does not allow “inmates identified by medical or CDCR personnel as 

transgender or having symptoms of gender dysphoria” housed in male institutions 

access to them: bracelet, earrings, hair brush, and hair clips; and

f. The parties shall continue to meet and confer regarding inmates’ access to binders, 

including whether binders should be provided to transgender male inmates as a 

state-issued clothing item or for purchase as a specialty item.

Case 3:14-cv-02726-JST Document 74 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 3
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. Defendants shall provide Plaintiff copies of the proposed language for the property 

policies no later than Thursday, June 30 at 5:00 p.m. Within a week thereafter, the 

parties shall schedule an in person meet and confer to discuss any remaining disputes 

between the parties regarding the property policy. 

5. If the parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the terms of the revised property 

policies, the parties shall submit their disputes to the court for its consideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2016

 

NANDOR J. VADAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-02726-JST Document 74 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 3