L. Bloodstone v. B. Gootkin ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                              02/15/2022
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                 Case Number: OP 22-0058
    OP 22-0058
    LESLEE ROSALIE BLOODSTONE (legal name)
    a/k/a LESLIE VINCENT JESSOP (committed
    name),
    Petitioner,
    ORDER
    v.
    BRIAN GOOTKIN, Director, MONTANA                                       ALE)
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    FEB 1 5 2022
    Bowen     faenwood
    Respondent.                                           Clerk of Supreme Court
    State of Montana
    Leslee Rosalie Bloodstone, also known as Leslie Vincent Jessop, has filed a
    Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to § 27-26-102, MCA, or alternatively a writ of
    prohibition. Bloodstone explains that she is incarcerated in the Montana State Prison and
    that she identifies herself as trans-female.'
    A writ of mandamus, also known as mandate, is specific and statutorily driven.
    Sections 27-26-101 through 27-26-403, MCA. To state a claim for mandamus, a party
    must show entitlement to the performance of a clear legal duty by the party against whom
    the writ is directed and the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.
    Section 27-26-102, MCA; Smith v. Missoula Co., 
    1999 MT 330
    , ¶ 28, 
    297 Mont. 368
    ,
    
    992 P.2d 834
    .
    Bloodstone requests the appropriate standard of care for her gender dysphoria. She
    cites to the Standard of Care (SOC) for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender
    Nonconforming People, such as herself, and she attaches a copy to her Petition. She alleges
    that the agents, staff, and administrators of the Department of Corrections (DOC) have
    failed to follow its policy "as it relates to Transgender offenders" and the Standard of Care.
    She includes copies of DOC's Policy No. 1.3.20, Nondiscrimination and Sexual
    This Court chooses to use feminine pronouns as Bloodstone has used in hcr Petition.
    Harassment, and DOC Policy No. 1.1.17, Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA).
    Bloodstone contends that the DOC and its Director are "clearly legally bound" to treat her
    fairly and without discrimination. She also raises four other issues concerning this legal
    duty: (1) whether DOC's personnel are properly trained to communicate and treat
    transgender inmates; (2) whether Bloodstone has been classified and identified as a
    transgender female who should receive proper health care and treatment; (3) whether
    Bloodstone's allegations of discrimination have been properly investigated; and
    (4) whether the DOC has a clear legal duty to provide access to Bloodstone for specific
    undergarments and care items, such as bras, panfies, make-up, and shoes.
    The DOC's Policy for Offender Discrimination, now found as DOC Policy
    No. 3.3.20 (2020), provides:
    The Department does not tolerate employees committing any forms of
    discrimination, harassment or retaliation against offenders based upon the
    offender's race, color, religion, creed, political ideas, sex, age, marital status,
    physical or mental disability, or national origin, or in retaliation against an
    offender because the offender has opposed any discriminatory practices or
    because the offender has filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated
    in any manner in a discrimination investigation or proceeding. The
    Department is committed to resolving discrimination and harassment
    complaints in a fair and timely manner.
    DOC Policy No. 3.3.20, I., at 1. While this current version of nondiscrimination does not
    explicitly include gender identity or expression as the older version does, it still contains
    the remedy for an offender, such as Bloodstone. This policy requires that an offender "must
    report the allegation to the Department for prompt investigation and any appropriate
    actions." DOb Policy No. 3.3.20, IV., at 2. Bloodstone has not averred that she has
    reported any allegations or complaints of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation via
    DOC's Policy for grievances before she sought relief here. See DOC Policy No. 3.3.5
    concerning Inmate/Staff Communication Methods and DOC Policy No. 3.3.3 for
    Offender Grievance Program. Bloodstone must report any allegations to the DOC.
    Turning to her attached section of the PREA, the DOC has training about "how to
    communicate effectively and professionally with offenders who might be lesbian, gay,
    bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTI) or gender nonconforming[d" DOC Policy 1.1.17,
    2
    IV.C.2.j., at 5. Also included in this policy is how an offender may report sexual abuse or
    sexual harassment, utilizing the DOC Policy No. 3.3.3, Offender Grievance Program.
    DOC Policy No. 1.1.17, at 8-9. This Court could not locate any DOC policy concerning
    gender dysphoria management.
    Upon review, Bloodstone has not demonstrated a clear legal duty for the DOC to
    act upon her requests. It is not clear that Bloodstone has alerted the DOC about her
    concerns. "Grievances should provide prison officials with fair notice of a problem and
    thus an opportunity to address the problem before a lawsuit is filed." Diamond v. Owens,
    
    131 F. Supp. 3d 1346
    , 1358 (M.D. Ga. 2015) (citing Chandler v. Crosby, 
    379 F.3d 1278
    ,
    1287 (1 1 th Cir. 2004)). Bloodstone does not argue that the DOC has not acted upon her
    grievances because it is not readily apparent whether she has given the DOC notice about
    her complaints when she is required to do so, pursuant to DOC policy.
    Bloodstone has other remedies available to her before coming to this Court. She
    may seek relief by filing a complaint in the Powell County District Court where a record
    could be developed for this Court to review on appeal. Section 27-26-102, MCA. She
    could utilize the grievance procedure under DOC Policy No. 3.3.3, which could assist her
    in potentially pursuing a remedy for alleged harm concerning her custody and care under
    a 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     claim.
    Bloodstone has not demonstrated that she is entitled to the performance of a clear
    legal duty. Section 27-26-102, MCA; Smith, ¶ 28. Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED that Bloodstone's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, or alternatively
    a writ of prohibition, is DENIED and DISMISSED.
    The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
    of record and to Leslee Rosalie Bloodstone personally.
    DATED this l5         aay of February, 2022.
    Chief Justice
    3
    -,, -t?.-gY/t,,
    ‘i
    c__4 ,Jj
    Justices
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: OP 22-0058

Filed Date: 2/15/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/15/2022