Federal appeals court reinstates prisoner's sex-change lawsuit

NEW YORK Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:18pm EST

Related Topics

Photo

Under the Iron Dome

Sirens sound as rockets land deep inside Israel.  Slideshow 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Monday reinstated a lawsuit brought by a transgendered prisoner against Virginia authorities for refusing to allow her to undergo a sex-change operation.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Ophelia Azriel De'lonta, born Michael Stokes, can argue that denying her the surgery violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The ruling comes six months after a federal judge in Boston ordered Massachusetts to pay for a sex-change operation for a convicted murderer who, like De'lonta, suffers from gender identity disorder.

The disease is "characterized by a feeling of being trapped in a body of the wrong gender," Judge Albert Diaz wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

While such cases can sometimes be treated with hormone therapy and living as a member of the opposite sex, the most serious cases require sex reassignment surgery, the court said, citing the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

"In these cases, the surgery is not considered experimental or cosmetic; is it an accepted, medically indicated treatment," Diaz wrote.

In reversing a lower court's decision to dismiss the case for failing to state a cause of action, the 4th Circuit did not order that De'lonta receive the surgery. Instead, it simply found that her lawsuit was viable under the Eighth Amendment and sent the case back down to the district court for further proceedings.

"We do not decide today the merits of De'lonta's claim," Diaz wrote.

The Virginia attorney general's office, which defended against the lawsuit, could not be reached for comment on Monday.

The case represents the second time De'lonta, serving 73 years for bank robbery, has sued the state over her treatment. In 1999, she filed a lawsuit claiming the prison had failed to provide her treatment for her disorder in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit, but the 4th Circuit revived it in 2003. De'lonta and state authorities then reached a settlement that would give her hormone therapy and psychological treatment.

But De'lonta's latest lawsuit claims she still suffers from the uncontrollable urge to castrate herself despite the treatments and needs the surgery to prevent serious self-mutilation.

The case is De'lonta v. Johnson et al., U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 11-7482.

(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
citizen033 wrote:
Seems plain as day that denying an elective surgery to remedy a non-life-threatening “disease” is hardly cruel and unusual punishment.

Of course, the constitution envisioned execution for murderers . . .

The doctors who have supplied the judge’s information that this is “an accepted, medically indicated treatment” stand to gain–such procedures are their livelihood. I hate to think whether labiectomies and foreskin reversals are argued by such doctors as being in the same “medically indicated” category.

Worse still, if this view is argued in the courts effectively, you can bet that tax payers will soon be footing the bill via Obamacare

Back to the issue at hand, what’s so offensive in this case is that it is understood that criminals (including murderers) have a right to due process but essentially forfeit their right to pursue their happiness on their own terms. In 1948 the Court declared that “lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights.” So they retain the right to free speech, religion, privacy and so forth.

But, this is absolutely beyond the pale of prisoners rights, just as the torture of prisoners (even at Guantanamo) is beyond the pale in the other direction.

Jan 29, 2013 11:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
BlueOkie wrote:
What is going on in this country! What has become of morals. Since when do we allow prisoners to sue the gov’t? What a crock.

Jan 29, 2013 11:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.