Clifton v. Central California Womens Facility Health Care

Background

Daniel Clifton, a former California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation prisoner, filed this civil-rights action while incarcerated at the Central California Women’s Facility. He named Central California Womens Facility Health Care and Dr. Dev Gurjala as defendants. Clifton alleged that Dr. Gurjala performed a double bilateral mastectomy on January 17, 2022, because of Clifton’s gender dysphoria. Although Clifton alleged that the surgery itself went without incident, he claimed that he received no aftercare and later reported dissatisfaction with the size and position of the breasts, nipple grafts, and scars. He said the result caused more distress than his original gender dysphoria.

Screening standard

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires dismissal of a complaint filed without paying the filing fee if it is frivolous, malicious, seeks damages from an immune defendant, or fails to state a claim. The court applied the same basic standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It also stated that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, but must still provide enough facts to give defendants fair notice of the claim.

Central California Womens Facility Health Care

The court held that Central California Womens Facility Health Care was not an appropriate defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It stated that the facility was not a “person” for purposes of that statute and was a subdivision of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The court further stated that the state agency had immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and that neither a waiver of immunity nor a valid congressional override applied to this § 1983 action.

Dr. Gurjala

The court explained that deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical need can violate the Eighth Amendment. It recognized that gender dysphoria is a serious medical need, but found that Dr. Gurjala had taken steps to treat it by performing the surgery. The court held that Clifton’s allegation that Dr. Gurjala said everything looked fine did not amount to deliberate indifference. The court also noted that the cited cases concerning gender-confirming surgery involved refusal to provide the surgery, rather than failure to provide a revision. Finally, even assuming that failing to correct or revise the surgery could violate the Eighth Amendment, the complaint did not allege facts showing that Dr. Gurjala, an outside doctor, rather than a prison official, was responsible for the lack of aftercare or follow-up surgery.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the file. The court stated that Clifton’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee would be granted by a separate order.