United States District Court, D. Delaware
HERMIONE KELLY IVY WINTER, formerly known as David Allen Allemandi, Plaintiff,
MONICA MILLS, et al., Defendants. HERMIONE KELLY IVY WINTER, formerly known as David Allen Allemandi, Plaintiff,
DR. P. MUNOZ, et al., Defendants. HERMIONE KELLY IVY WINTER, Plaintiff,
CHRISTOPHER SENATO, et al., Defendants.
Hermione Kelly Ivy Winter ("Plaintiff), formerly known
as David Allen Allemandi, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center ("VCC") in Smyrna, Delaware,
has filed several actions in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff appears pro se and has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pattperis.
three above-captioned cases, Plaintiff seeks treatment of
gender dysphoria and a religious diet. Plaintiff filed
motions for injunctive relief in Civ. No. 16-890-LPS at D.I.
28 and Civ. No. 17-1432-LPS at D.I. 25. The Court ordered
Defendants to respond to the motions with responses due on or
before March 15, 2018. Defendants filed the same response in
both cases. (See Civ. No. 16-890-LPS at D.I. 36;
Civ. No. 17-1432-LPS at D.I. 32)
meantime, Plaintiff commenced a new civil action and filed
two motions for injunctive relief. (See Civ. No.
18-351-LPS at D.I. 3, 10) On March 19, 2018, she filed
another motion for injunctive relief in Civ. No. 17-1432-LPS.
(See Id. at D.I. 40) On March 23, 2018, she filed
six more motions seeking injunctive relief: three in Civ. No.
16-890-LPS at D.I. 42, 43, and 44, and three in Civ. No.
17-1432-LPS at D.I. 42, 43, 44. On March 26, 2018, Plaintiff
filed identical emergency motions for injunctive relief in
Civ. No. 16-890 at D.I. 45 and Civ. No. 17-1432-LPS at D.I.
45 threatening a hunger/liquid strike if he does not receive
a vegan diet. Because the recent motions for injunctive
relief seek the same relief as is sought in the motions to
which Defendants filed responses, the Court sees no need to
order Defendants to respond to the motions filed in Civ. No.
16-890-LPS at D.I. 42, 43, 44, 45; Civ. No. 17-1432-LPS at
D.I. 40, 42, 43, 44, 45; and Civ. No. 18-351-LPS at D.I. 3,
identifies as a woman. She seeks injunctive relief to receive
medical care in form of "feminizing hormone replacement
treatment" and an adequate nutritional religious vegan
diet, both of which she states have been recommended by
physicians and religious leaders. She wants a television and
also asks that she be allowed to possess her "greeman
witch talisman" which protects her and keeps her
focused. (See Civ. No. 17-143-LPS at D.I. 40; Civ.
No. 18-31-LPS at D.I. 3, 10) Plaintiff threatens
self-castration, suicide, and that she will starve herself
if, by March 30, 2018, she is "not provided a high
caloried high protein vegan tray,  feminizing HRTs, and a
T.V." (D.I. 40 at 2)
preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy that
should be granted only if: (1) the plaintiff is likely to
succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable
harm to the plaintiff; (3) granting the injunction will not
result in irreparable harm to the defendant; and (4) granting
the injunction is in the public interest."
NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar'Enterprises, Inc., 176
F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999) ("NutraSweet II"). The
elements also apply to temporary restraining orders. See
NutriSweet Co. v. Vit-MarEnterprises., Inc., 112 F.3d
689, 693 (3d Cir. 1997) (“NutraSweet I")
(temporary restraining order that continues beyond time
permissible under Rule 65 must be treated as preliminary
injunction, and must conform to standards applicable to
preliminary injunctions). "[F]ailure to establish any
element in [a plaintiffs] favor renders a preliminary
injunction inappropriate." NutraSweet II, 176
F.3d at 153. Furthermore, because of the intractable problems
of prison administration, a request for injunctive relief in
the prison context must be viewed with considerable caution.
See Rush v. Correctional Med. Services, Inc., 287
Fed.Appx. 142, 144 (3d Cir. July 31, 2008) (citing Goff
v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
seeks an order requiring Defendants to place her on hormone
replacement treatment ("HRT"). (See Civ.
No. 16-890-LPS at D.I. 28; Civ. No. 17-1432-LPS at D.I. 25,
40) She threatens to harm herself if the treatment is not
provided by March 30, 2018. In opposition to the motions,
Defendants submitted a comprehensive summary of Plaintiffs
condition prepared by Robin Belcher-Timme ("Dr.
Belcher-Timme"), chief psychologist of Connections
Community Support Programs ("Connections") and
chair of the Gender Dysphoria Consultation Group
("GDCG"). (See Civ. No. 16-890-LPS at D.I.
at Ex. A; Civ. No. 17-1432-LPS at D.I. 32 at Ex. A)
explained by Dr. Belcher-Timme, Plaintiff identified herself
to the treatment team as transgender in early 2015, and was
diagnosed with gender dysphoria on March 22, 2017. The
treatment provided to Plaintiff is consistent with Delaware
Department of Correction Policy 11-E-14 Treatment of
Transgender Persons 2, and Connections' statewide
procedure for the evaluation and treatment of gender
dysphoria. Plaintiffs treatment is coordinated by her
treatment team with the GDCG and her case is followed closely
by the GDCG with consultation to the treatment team at VCC on
a regular basis. Dr. Belcher-Timme explains that individuals
transitioning from male to female, and who begin HRT,
experience significant mood alteration and lability as they
adjust to decreased levels of testosterone and increased
levels of estrogen, along with other physical and
psychological changes. For individuals with premorbid
diagnosed serious mental illnesses, especially those
conditions that include affective dysregulation like
borderline personality disorder, these potential side effects
are more pronounced and cause significant distress for the
individual. Dr. Belcher-Timme states there is fear that the
risks can outweigh the benefits of HRT in particular cases,
and it is not always in the patient's best interests to
rapidly impose medical interventions that can have an
iatrogenic and dangerous impact.
Belcher-Timme's report and Plaintiffs medical records
indicate that she receives continued and regular treatment
for her condition, including individual therapy twice a week
and group therapy five days per week. In addition, the
medical records indicate that Plaintiff is closely followed
for psychiatric close observation due to her suicidal
ideation. In October 2017, Plaintiff was placed in the
Residential Treatment Unit at the VCC, where she remains to
date. The unit is designed for individuals diagnosed with
serious mental illness. Plaintiff has been seen dozens of
times by mental health clinicians and psychiatric providers
and has been consistently diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder and personality disorders. Plaintiff has been
placed on psychiatric close observation due to concerns about
suicidality, which are consistently conditioned on her
demands for HRT.
are several factors considered when determining whether
Plaintiff is a candidate for HRT. Plaintiff must demonstrate
a persistent, well-document diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
She has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria for less than
one year and has not allowed the prescribed interventions to
have an impact due to her demands for the interventions she
desires. Plaintiff has not engaged in the ...