Opinion ID: 2761209
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The DOC's concerns about safety and security

Text: were reasonable Recognizing that reasonable concerns would arise regarding a post-operative, male-to-female transsexual being housed with male prisoners takes no great stretch of the imagination. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 848-49 (summarizing evidence that a prison's refusal to provide segregated housing to a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual could pose significant security concerns). At the same time, as particularly relevant in Kosilek's case, the DOC's security report reflected that significant concerns would also arise from housing a formerly male inmate -- with a criminal history of extreme violence against a female domestic partner -- within a female prison population containing high numbers of domestic violence survivors. Nonetheless, in dismissing the DOC's concerns, the district court relied heavily on the fact that security issues have not yet arisen within MCI-Norfolk's general population. Rejecting the testimony of multiple -62- individuals with decades of penological experience -- all of whom acknowledged the risk of housing a female prisoner at MCI-Norfolk -- the district court reasoned that Kosilek's past safety was indicative of a likelihood that she could reside safely at the prison after her operation. This reasoning wrongly circumvents the deference owed to prison administrators: the appropriate inquiry was not whether the court believed that Kosilek could be housed safely, but whether the DOC has a reasoned basis for its stated concerns. Indeed, that Kosilek had so far been safe within MCI-Norfolk's prison population does not negate the DOC's well-reasoned belief that safety concerns would arise in the future after SRS. Cf. Jones v. N.C. Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119, 132-33 & n.9 (1977) (holding, in the First Amendment context, that the rights of prisoners may be abridged based on a reasonable belief that future harm or disruption may occur); cf. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984) (requiring prison administrators to implement prophylactic solutions to foreseeable security issues reasonably within the scope of their expertise). Moreover, the fact that, preoperatively, Kosilek has not been subject to assault or threats does not vitiate the concern that she would be victimized after receiving SRS.15 15 These concerns were obvious to more than just those individuals within the DOC with significant penological experience. The likelihood that issues surrounding secure housing would arise after -63- The district court also reasoned that the DOC [could] reasonably assure the safety of Kosilek and others after sex reassignment surgery by housing Kosilek in a segregated protective custody unit. It then noted, however, that there existed a strong argument that such isolation would amount to a form of extrajudicial punishment that is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. This warning echoes the very concerns highlighted by the DOC, which expressed disagreement with the use of long-term isolation as a housing solution for Kosilek, based on its potential negative effects on her mental health. See also Battista, 645 F.3d at 454 (explaining that creating a segregated treatment center to house a GID prisoner would pose administrative difficulties and be isolating). The deference awarded to prison administrators cannot be defeated by such circular reasoning, which dismisses the DOC's concern in one breath only to recognize its validity in the next. The prison administrators in this case have decades of combined experience in the management of penological institutions, and it is they, not the court, who are best situated to determine what security concerns will arise. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 548 ([J]udicial deference is accorded [in part] because the administrator ordinarily will . . . have a better grasp of his domain than the reviewing judge . . . .). The DOC's judgment SRS was also acknowledged by Kosilek's treating psychologist, Mark Burrows, and by the Fenway Center doctors in their initial report. -64- regarding post-operative housing is without doubt within the realm of reason, Battista, 645 F.3d at 454, and the district court's alternative belief as to the possibility of safely housing Kosilek does not suffice to undermine this reasonableness. The DOC officials also expressed concern that providing Kosilek SRS would incentivize the use of suicide threats by prisoners as a means of receiving desired benefits. Although the district court determined that, in this case, Kosilek's risk for suicidal ideation was very real, this finding does not invalidate the DOC's reasonable belief that providing SRS might lead to proliferation of false threats among other prisoners. The DOC's concern -- regarding the unacceptable precedent that would be established in dealing with future threats of suicide by inmates to force the prison authorities to comply with the prisoners' particular demands -- cannot be discounted as a minor or invalid claim. Such threats are not uncommon in prison settings and require firm rejection by the authorities, who must be given ample discretion in dealing with such situations. Given the circumstances presented here, we cannot say that the DOC lacks reasonable security concerns.