## Facts

- Deon “Strawberry” Hampton, a transgender woman incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and received cross-sex hormones; her testosterone was near zero and estrogen in the female range.
- IDOC designated Hampton as Seriously Mentally Ill after a bipolar-disorder diagnosis.
- IDOC generally housed people by birth sex, resulting in Hampton being housed in men’s prisons despite her gender identity and physical changes from medical treatment.
- Hampton alleged a sustained pattern of sexual assault, physical violence, and gender-based harassment by staff and prisoners across multiple men’s facilities, including episodes she reported as PREA violations.
- Some of Hampton’s reports of sexual abuse and harassment were verified, but IDOC’s primary response was transferring her between men’s institutions rather than providing durable protection.
- After transfer to Dixon Correctional Center, Hampton initially received increased mental-health services, withdrew an earlier request for emergency injunctive relief, and was later moved from segregation to general population.
- Hampton then alleged renewed escalation: persistent gender-based slurs by staff, threats, refusal to protect her from prisoner violence, and continued risk of sexual and physical harm.
- Hampton sought preliminary relief requiring IDOC officials to transfer her to Logan Correctional Center (a women’s facility) or otherwise place her in a setting providing adequate safety.
- Defendants opposed transfer, relying heavily on a Transgender Care Review Committee conclusion that Hampton was “too aggressive” and posed security risks; the court questioned the timing and basis of that conclusion, including whether it accounted for self-protective conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether Hampton showed a likelihood of success that officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment by continuing to house her in men’s facilities without reasonable protective measures.
2. Whether Hampton showed a likelihood of success on a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim based on differential treatment of transgender prisoners and denial of an individualized housing determination.
3. Whether Hampton satisfied preliminary-injunction requirements, including irreparable harm, inadequate legal remedies, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored court-ordered protective relief.

## Decision

- The court granted Hampton’s renewed motion for a preliminary injunction in part.
- It found a strong likelihood of success on the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference/failure-to-protect claim based on documented vulnerability, repeated reports of assault and harassment, and IDOC’s insufficient responses.
- It found a substantial likelihood of success on an equal protection theory where IDOC appeared to permit individualized placement for some transgender prisoners but denied Hampton a meaningful individualized assessment.
- It found irreparable harm from the ongoing risk of sexual and physical violence, and that damages would not prevent future harm.
- It ordered IDOC to take concrete protective measures, including a prompt, good-faith individualized reassessment of Hampton’s placement and safety needs that could not rest on categorical housing rules or an unexamined “too aggressive” label.

## Legal Principles

- Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect liability requires an objectively substantial risk of serious harm and subjective deliberate indifference—knowledge of the risk and failure to take reasonable steps to abate it.
- A prisoner’s documented vulnerability, repeated reports of assault, and verified PREA-related incidents can support a finding of substantial risk and officials’ awareness at the preliminary-injunction stage.
- Equal protection is implicated when prison officials treat similarly situated individuals differently without an adequate, fact-based justification; individualized decisionmaking for some prisoners may not be denied to others based on conclusory or post hoc rationales.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires a showing of likely success on the merits, irreparable harm, lack of an adequate remedy at law, and that the balance of harms and public interest favor relief; preventing serious physical injury and enforcing constitutional rights weigh heavily in the analysis.

## Conclusion

The court granted preliminary relief because Hampton showed a strong likelihood that IDOC officials disregarded a known, serious risk to her safety by continuing to house her in men’s facilities without adequate protection, and because the record suggested discriminatory and inadequately individualized treatment in housing decisions for a transgender prisoner; the order required meaningful, individualized protective action, including serious consideration of transfer to a women’s facility.


Hampton v. Baldwin, No. 18-cv-550-NJR-RJD, 2018 WL 5830730 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 7, 2018)