Hermione Winter v. Shane Troxler ( 2021 )

CLD-060 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-2517
___________
EVONCA SAKINAH S. ALIAHMED,
a/k/a Hermione K. I. Winter, a/k/a David Allen Allemandi,
Appellant
v.
BUREAU CHIEF SHANE TROXLER; DOCTOR ROBINO BELCHER TIMME;
DOCTOR CHRIS MOEN; DOCTOR DAVID AUGUST;
BUREAU CHIEF MARE RICHMAN; DOCTOR SARAH SEASE;
DOCTOR JONATHAN TAN; DOCTOR SARAH SPRINGER;
DOCTOR FRANCES MARTY; RN MISTY MAY; RN TRACI COLEMAN;
DOCTOR PAOLA MUNOZ; DOCTOR EMILIA ADADI;
DOCTOR NICOLE CARDEN; WILLIAM NGWA; SUSAN CONLEY; JIM C. PENIX;
MRC LISA B. BROOKS; LPN JOCELYN B. BURGESS; RN JESSICA L. JOHNSON;
KATRINA BURLEY; WARDEN ROBERT MAY; MAJOR JOHN BRENNAN;
CAPTAIN DOTSON; CAPTAIN RANOLD WILLEY; C/O KOCH; CORRECTIONAL
COUNSELOR BROWN; L.T. DAUM; L.T. SMITH; CLASSIFICATION
ADMINISTRATOR MRS. FORAKER; COMMISSIONER OF DELAWARE;
GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE; CHAPLAIN GUS CHRISTO; TREATMENT
ADMISTRATOR HOLLIS; CAPTAIN RAMON TAYLOR; SGT. JOSHUA
WALSTRUM; SGT. PIERCE; I.A. MRS. CLARK
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-20-cv-00526)
District Judge: Honorable Leonard P. Stark
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 30, 2020
Before: RESTREPO, MATEY, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed January 14, 2021)
__________
OPINION*
__________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Evonca Sakinah Aliahmed, a Delaware state prisoner incarcerated
at Sussex Correctional Institute, appeals from the District Court’s order denying her
motion for injunctive relief. For the reasons discussed below, we will summarily affirm
in part and dismiss in part for lack of jurisdiction.
I.
In April 2020, Aliahmed filed a civil rights complaint in the District Court against
various prison officials, alleging that some of her requests for treatment of her gender
dysphoria have been denied. She claimed that the defendants violated her civil rights by
denying certain medical care, ignoring suicide risks, providing unsafe housing, denying
requests for a transfer to a different facility, and interfering with her religious practices,
all based on her gender identification as a female. Aliahmed then filed many motions,
including a motion for injunctive relief that primarily sought: (1) an order directing the
defendants to provide her with gender reassignment surgery at the next available
appointment; (2) an order directing the defendants to provide her with a housing
assignment that ensures her safety; (3) an order directing her transfer to Baylor Women’s
Correctional Institution (“BWCI”); (4) an order permitting her to worship in the same
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
manner as other female Muslim inmates, primarily by permitting her to use a female head
covering; and (5) an order directing her release from prison.
In an order entered on July 10, 2020, the District Court denied the requests for
injunctive relief with respect to the medical care, suicide risk, unsafe housing, and
transfer issues, determining that Aliahmed had not shown a likelihood of success on the
merits. The District Court denied the remaining requests for injunctive relief without
prejudice and with instructions for the parties to provide additional briefing. The District
Court’s order also ruled on many of Aliahmed’s other pending motions, including her
motion for appointment of counsel, which was denied. This appeal ensued.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal of an interlocutory order to the extent that it
refused an injunction “within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).” Hope v. Warden
York Cnty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 319 (3d Cir. 2020). Based on the circumstances here,
we have jurisdiction to review the requests for injunctive relief that the District Court
denied with prejudice, but we lack jurisdiction to review the requests for injunctive relief
that the District Court denied without prejudice. See Def. Distributed v. Att’y Gen. of
N.J., 972 F.3d 193, 199 (3d Cir. 2020) (explaining that the Court lacked jurisdiction to
review an order dismissing a motion for an injunction without prejudice because “there
has been no ruling, explicitly or effectively, denying the injunction”).1 “We generally
1
Thus, to the extent that Aliahmed seeks to appeal the requests that were denied without
prejudice, we will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent that Aliahmed
seeks to appeal the denial of her counsel motion, we also lack jurisdiction at this time and
will dismiss the appeal. See Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26 (3d Cir. 1984).
3
review a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion but
review the underlying factual findings for clear error and examine legal conclusions de
novo.” Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 586 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2009). We may
summarily affirm if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray v.
Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and
I.O.P. 10.6.
III.
To obtain the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction, the moving
party must establish: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer
irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not
result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public interest favors
such relief.” Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004). Here,
the District Court properly concluded that Aliahmed failed to demonstrate that she was
likely to succeed on her medical, suicide risk, housing assignment, and transfer claims.
The record indicated that Aliahmed has been provided with routine treatment, including
hormone replacement therapy, for her gender dysphoria. She has been consistently
evaluated and monitored for progress and suicide risk. At this time, her request to be
scheduled for immediate gender reassignment surgery reflects disagreement as to the
proper course of treatment rather than any deliberate delay or denial of necessary medical
care that might give rise to a deliberate indifference claim. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d
218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). The record also reflects that the defendants have taken
precautions, including the placement of Aliahmed in a single cell, in order to protect her
4
safety and monitor her suicide risk. Thus, she has not shown a sufficient likelihood of
success on her claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk of harm
based on her housing assignment. See Hamilton v. Leavy, 117 F.3d 742, 746 (3d Cir.
1997). And because Aliahmed lacks a cognizable liberty interest in being confined in
any particular institution, see Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 251 (1983), she is
unlikely to succeed on her claims based on her requests for a transfer to BWCI. Thus, the
District Court properly denied the motion for injunctive relief with respect to the medical,
suicide risk, housing assignment, and transfer requests.
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment
in part, see 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6, and dismiss the appeal in part, see supra n.1.
5