Zyst v. Miller

Oregon Const., art. 1, §§ 13, 16 (“[n]o person arrested, or confined in jail, shall be treated with unnecessary rigor”); (“Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense.”)

A transgender incarcerated person sought habeas relief for inadequate treatment of her gender dysphoria. In particular, plaintiff argued that she did not receive care consistent with World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) because prison medical staff did not conduct an individualized assessment and denied certain treatments on a per se basis. After hearing testimony from medical experts, the trial court found violations of Oregon’s prohibitions on “cruel and unusual punishments” and “unnecessary rigor.” The Defendant, the Superintendent of Snake River Correctional Institution, appealed.

Trial court affirmed: Failing to provide an individualized assessment and corresponding care to a transgender incarcerated person with gender dysphoria is both “cruel and unusual punishment” and “unnecessary rigor,” and thus violates Oregon’s state constitution.

On the cruel and unusual punishment claim, the court applied the two-part test from Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). First, the court found that plaintiff was denied a “medically necessary treatment” — to wit, an individualized assessment to determine how to respond to plaintiff’s gender dysphoria. Second, the court found that this denial resulted from “deliberate difference” on the part of prison officials, noting that prison officials at least partly followed guidance that improperly placed bright-line prohibitions on certain treatments, which amounted to deliberately denying individual, need-based treatment.

Under the unnecessary rigor clause, the court reiterated that “when assessing claims of unnecessary rigor in habeas corpus cases, courts should consider whether the prison conditions or treatment are more strict, severe, or harsh than the circumstances require, including whether they are abusive, degrading, or inhumane.” Again, the court found that denying the medically-required individualized assessment met this standard.