United States District Court, D. Maine
WALTER WILLIAM MOORE, a/ka Nikki Natasha Petrovickov, Plaintiff
v.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
John
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge.
In this
action, Plaintiff, an inmate at the Maine State Prison,
alleges Defendants did not provide adequate treatment for
gender dysphoria. (Complaint at 3 - 4, ECF No. 1.) The matter
is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment of
Defendants Magnusson, Fitzpatrick, Merrill, and Liberty,
officials or former officials of the prison. (ECF No. 133.)
Following a review of the summary judgment record and after
consideration of parties' arguments, I recommend the
Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Summary
Judgment Standard
“The
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “After the moving party has
presented evidence in support of its motion for summary
judgment, ‘the burden shifts to the nonmoving party,
with respect to each issue on which he has the burden of
proof, to demonstrate that a trier of fact reasonably could
find in his favor.'” Woodward v. Emulex
Corp., 714 F.3d 632, 637 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting
Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151, 158
(1st Cir. 1998)).
A court
reviews the factual record in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, resolving evidentiary conflicts and drawing
reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor.
Perry v. Roy, 782 F.3d 73, 77 (1st Cir. 2015). If a
court's review of the record reveals evidence sufficient
to support findings in favor of the non-moving party on one
or more of the Plaintiff's claims, a trial-worthy
controversy exists, and summary judgment must be denied as to
any supported claim. Id. (“The district
court's role is limited to assessing whether there exists
evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
for the nonmoving party.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Unsupported claims are properly dismissed.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24
(1986).
Summary
Judgment Record
When
presented with a summary judgment motion, a court ordinarily
considers only the facts included in the parties'
statements of material facts, which statements must be
supported by citations to evidence of record. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(c) and District of Maine Local Rule 56(b)
- (d) require the specific citation to record evidence. In
addition, Local Rule 56 establishes the manner by which
parties must present their factual statements and the
evidence on which the statements depend. A party's pro se
status does not relieve the party of the obligation to comply
with the court's procedural rules.[1] Ruiz Rivera
v. Riley, 209 F.3d 24, 27 - 28 & n. 2 (1st Cir.
2000); Marcello v. Maine, 489 F.Supp.2d 70, 77 (D.
Me. 2007).
By
rule, a party seeking summary judgment must file, in addition
to its summary judgment motion, a supporting statement of
material facts setting forth each fact in a separately
numbered paragraph, with each factual statement followed by a
citation to evidence of record that supports the factual
statement. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(b). A party opposing a motion
for summary judgment must file an opposing statement in which
it admits, denies, or qualifies the moving party's
statements by reference to each numbered paragraph, with
citations to supporting evidence, and in which it may set
forth additional facts, in separately numbered paragraphs,
with citation to supporting evidence. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(c).
If an additional statement is introduced by the non-moving
party, the moving party must file a reply statement in which
it admits, denies, or qualifies the non-moving party's
additional statements by reference to each numbered
paragraph, with citations to supporting evidence. D. Me. Loc.
R. 56(d).
“Facts
contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material
facts, if supported by record citations as required by this
rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly
controverted.” D. Me. Loc. R. 56(f). Additionally,
“[t]he court may disregard any statement of fact not
supported by a specific citation to record material properly
considered on summary judgment.” Id. Finally,
“[t]he court shall have no independent duty to search
or consider any part of the record not specifically
referenced in the parties' separate statement of
facts.” Id.
Nevertheless,
the factual assertions contained in the verified pleadings
and affidavits filed by a pro se litigant generally will be
considered in the review of a summary judgment motion. That
is, where a pro se litigant has failed to comply strictly
with the summary judgment rules, this Court has considered
the sworn assertions of record. See Clarke v. Blais,
473 F.Supp.2d 124, 128 - 30 (D. Me. 2007) (“The First
Circuit has not addressed this notice debate directly, but
has said, in the summary judgment context, that unrepresented
plaintiffs' opposing affidavits and opposition papers are
to be read ‘liberally.'” (citing Posadas
de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Radin, 856 F.2d 399,
401 (1st Cir. 1988), and Mas Marques v. Digital Equip.
Corp., 637 F.2d 24, 27 (1st Cir. 1980)); Demmons v.
Tritch, 484 F.Supp.2d 177, 182 - 83 (D. Me. 2007).
Factual
and Procedural Background[2]
Plaintiff
is a prisoner incarcerated at the Maine State Prison.
Plaintiff identifies as a transgendered individual, born
biologically a male but identifying as a female. (DSMF ¶
1; PSMF ¶¶ 1, 2.) Prior to beginning a sentence in
February 2005, Plaintiff was taking hormone medication to
treat gender dysphoria. (DSMF ¶ 2; Complaint at 3.) The
prison's medical personnel did not provide Plaintiff with
hormone medication at the prison. (DSMF ¶ 2; Complaint
at 3.) In November 2008, Plaintiff was sent to the Riverview
Psychiatric Hospital, where hormones were prescribed, but the
prison's medical providers discontinued the hormones upon
Plaintiff's return to the prison. (DSMF ¶ 3;
Complaint at 3.) The Warden of the prison (Defendant Liberty)
and the other security and administrative prison staff defer
to the judgment of the Department of Corrections'
contracted medical providers regarding the necessity of
medical treatment and the type of treatment prescribed. (DSMF
¶ 10.)
In
November 2015, the Department adopted Policy 23.8,
“Management of Transgender and Intersex Prisoners and
Residents.” (DSMF ¶ 4.) The policy creates
protocols for the assessment, placement, management and
treatment of prisoners with gender dysphoria or who are
transgender or intersex. (Id.) The policy
establishes a multi-disciplinary team, including the chief
administrative officer of the facility, security personnel,
and medical and mental health providers. (Id.) The
policy addresses issues such as housing and security
concerns, strip searches, allowed property and clothing, and
medical and mental health treatment. (Id.)
On
December 3, 2015, pursuant to the transgender policy, a
multi-disciplinary team was convened to provide
recommendations regarding Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 5.)
The team discussed such topics as Plaintiff's assigned
housing, Plaintiff's requests for cosmetics and female
clothing, appropriate forms of address, and medical
diagnosis. (Id.) Comprehensive minutes were kept at
such meetings. (Id. ΒΆ 6). At the first meeting,
the prison's medical director, Robert Clinton, M.D.,
advised that hormones had not ...