United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 26, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50854

Summary Calendar

 

JOSHUA PRAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; AHIA SHABAAZ; OWEN 

MURRAY, Medical Director; JOSEPHINE SESSION; WILLIAM LESLIE 

NORTHROP; VALENCIA POLLARD; WILLIAM GONZALES, DR.; UNIVERSITY

OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH AT GALVESTON CORRECTIONAL MANAGED 

CARE DIVISION; TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Praylor, Texas prisoner # 1128305, appeals the denial

of his civil rights complaint against numerous officials of the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and the University of

Texas and Texas Tech University health care systems (hereinafter,

TDCJ). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Praylor argues that the

TDCJ’s denial of his request for hormone therapy to treat his

transsexualism constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the

Eighth Amendment. Praylor has filed an injunction seeking to
No. 04-50854

-2-

instruct the TDCJ to provide him with hormone therapy and

brassieres. His motion is DENIED.

A dismissal for failure to state a claim under

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed under the same de novo standard

of review applicable to dismissals made pursuant to FED. R. CIV.

P. 12(b)(6). Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir.

1999). The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth

Amendment protects an inmate from improper medical care, but only

if the care is “sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

Although this circuit has not addressed the issue of

providing hormone treatment to transsexual inmates, we will

follow those circuits that have determined transsexualism to be a

serious medical need raising Eighth Amendment considerations. 

See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 103 (2d Cir. 2000); White v.

Farrier, 849 F.2d 322, 325 (8th Cir. 1988); Meriwether v.

Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 1987); Supre v. Ricketts,

792 F.2d 958, 963 (10th Cir. 1986). Likewise, this court

recognizes that while some method of treatment of inmate

transsexuals is required, such inmates do not have a

constitutional right to hormone therapy. Rather, the prison

facility must afford the transsexual inmate some form of

treatment based upon the specific circumstances of each case.
No. 04-50854

-3-

In Praylor’s case, the record reflects that he did not

request any form of treatment other than hormone therapy. 

Testimony from the medical director at the TDCJ revealed that the

TDCJ had a policy for treating transsexuals, but that Praylor did

not qualify for hormone therapy because of the length of his term

and the prison’s inability to perform a sex change operation, the

lack of medical necessity for the hormone, and the disruption to

the all-male prison. Cf. De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 635

(4th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the director testified that Praylor

had been evaluated on two occasions and denied eligibility for

hormone treatment and that the TDCJ did provide mental health

screening as part of its process for evaluating transsexuals. 

See Supre, 792 F.2d at 963. Accordingly, based upon the instant

record and circumstances of Praylor’s complaint, the denial of

his specific request for hormone therapy does not constitute

deliberate indifference. See Meriwether, 821 F.2d at 413; Supre,

792 F.2d at 963. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR INJUNCTION DENIED.