Ashley A. Diamond v. Brian Owens, et al.

131 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (2015)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Ashley A. Diamond v. Brian Owens, et al.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
131 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (2015)

Facts

In 2012 Ashley Diamond (plaintiff), a transgender woman, was incarcerated within the Georgia Department of Corrections (the department). At the time of Diamond’s incarceration, she had been on hormone therapy for over 17 years and presented as a woman. However, the department placed her in a closed-security facility for male prisoners. Diamond endured a brutal sexual assault. Diamond was then transferred to another closed-security facility for male prisoners, where she was subjected to another sexual assault. Diamond reported the sexual assaults to prison personnel and met with a mental-health professional employed by the department. Although the mental-health professional recommended that Diamond be relocated to a medium-security facility to mitigate her risk of future sexual assaults, the department transferred her to a third closed-security facility for male prisoners. Diamond was sexually assaulted four additional times, including by her cellmate. Diamond reported each incident and continuously requested to be transferred to a medium-security facility to lower her risk of sexual assault. The department failed to take any protective measures. The department also informed Diamond that she was to blame for the assaults because of her transgender status. Eventually, Diamond filed a failure-to-protect cause of action in federal district court against Brian Owens, who was the department’s commissioner, and other prison personnel (collectively, the prison personnel) (defendants). Diamond argued that the prison personnel’s failure to protect her violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The prison personnel moved to dismiss on the grounds that Diamond had failed to state a claim and that qualified immunity applied. The district court considered the motions.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Treadwell, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership