Campbell v. The Transgender Committee et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NICOLE CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL GIERACH
and JARED HOY,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-530-jdp
Nicole Campell is a male-to-female transgender state prisoner who has received gender-
affirming surgery and was transferred to Taycheedah Correctional Institution. She alleges that
Taycheedah has a policy of assigning post-operative male-to-female transgender prisoners to
single cells, that she has been assigned to a single cell based on the policy, and that her mental
health suffered due to limited contact with other prisoners. She is proceeding against Michael
Gierach, Warden at Taycheedah, and Jared Hoy, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections, 	on 	a 	Fourteenth 	Amendment 	equal 	protection 	claim 	for 	injunctive 	relief
challenging her assignment to a single cell based on her transgender status.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel defendants to supplement their responses to her
interrogatories. Dkt. 24. For the following reasons, I will DENY plaintiff’s motion, but I will
order defendants to respond to two special interrogatories to better define the contours of
discovery moving forward in the case.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance
Case: 3:24-cv-00530-jdp Document #: 27 Filed: 01/14/26 Page 1 of 5

2
of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
ANALYSIS
Certain issues raised in plaintiff’s motion to compel are now moot. 	Plaintiff seeks to
compel defendant Gierach to respond to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, but he provided
his responses to these requests on September 30, 2025. 	Dkt. 25-1. 	Plaintiff also seeks to
compel defendant Hoy to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 15, 16, 17 and 18, and she asks
for supplementation on other interrogatories. Hoy states that he would provide responses by
December 22, 2025. Dkt. 26 at 1. And defendants state that they would provide supplemental
responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6, 7–8, and 10 by that same date. Id. at 2. In light of these
developments, these particular disputes are no longer active. If plaintiff has objections to the
supplemental responses, she must meet and confer with defendants in good faith before seeking
further court intervention. See Dkt. 18 at 9 (explaining the meet and confer requirement) &
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (a motion to compel “must include a certification that the movant has
in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make
disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.”).
Still at issue is Interrogatory No. 11. 	Plaintiff asks how many of her “cellmates at
[Taycheedah] have made PREA complaints against [her]” and for their names. 	Dkt. 25-1, ¶
11. She states that she has “a legal right to know [her] accusers even of a PREA Complaint(s),”
Case: 3:24-cv-00530-jdp Document #: 27 Filed: 01/14/26 Page 2 of 5

3
and speculates that PREA complaints against post-operative transgender inmates may be why
defendants are housing these inmates in single cells. Dkt. 25 at 1. Defendants objected to this
interrogatory as not proportional to the needs of the case and as requesting confidential
information. Dkt. 25-1, ¶ 11.
They further argue in response to plaintiff’s motion that the request is irrelevant.
Defendants note that plaintiff is not proceeding in this lawsuit on a claim of discrimination
based on an inmate’s PREA history, that any attempt to allege that plaintiff was placed in a
single cell because of PREA complaints against her would “contradict” her allegation that she
was not assigned a cellmate because she is transgender, and that PREA information must be
kept confidential in order to protect inmates’ privacy and to encourage victims to report.
Defendants state that redaction would not address this concern because an inmate “could still
easily infer from the context of the complaint(s) as to who made the report.” Dkt. 26 at 4.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed on an equal protection claim. Specifically,
she claims that her prison’s policy of assigning post-operative male-to-female transgender
prisoners to single cells violates her equal protection rights. 	The Equal Protection Clause of
Fourteenth Amendment essentially requires that all similarly situated persons be treated alike.
Kondilis v. City of Chicago, 160 F.4th 866, 873 (7th Cir. 2025). But prison officials may treat
inmates differently so long as “the unequal treatment is rationally related to a legitimate
penological interest.” 	Yoder v. Prince, No. 23-2334, 2024 WL 3220407, at *2 (7th Cir. June
28, 2024) (citing Flynn v. Thatcher, 819 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 2016); City of Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439–42 (1985)). This rational basis inquiry applies except
when the disparate treatment is based on a protected class, in which case, strict scrutiny applies.
Id. The level of scrutiny that applies to policies that distinguish between individuals based on
Case: 3:24-cv-00530-jdp Document #: 27 Filed: 01/14/26 Page 3 of 5

4
their transgender status, but cannot be characterized as sex discrimination, is unsettled. 	Id.
Judge Peterson assumed for purposes of screening that transgender individuals are a protected
class, Dkt. 12, at 7, while acknowledging the unsettled question as to the applicable level of
scrutiny.
The choice in scrutiny impacts this discovery dispute because, if rational basis applies,
defendants may argue that there is a penological interest in assigning post-operative male-to-
female transgender inmates to single cells. 	Undercovering this rationale appears to be the
motivation behind plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 11—plaintiff suspects that defendants may
argue that post-operative male-to-female transgender inmates pose particular sexual assault
risks and that those risks justify assigning them single cells. 	If rational basis applies and
defendants intend to advance this argument, information concerning PREA complaints against
plaintiff or other post-operative transgender inmates may be relevant to assessing the legitimacy
of this alleged penological interest. But, if strict scrutiny applies or if defendants do not intend
to make this argument, then the information would be irrelevant and disproportionate to the
needs of this case.
The level of scrutiny that applies to the challenged policy in this case is a question for
another day, so for purposes of this discovery motion, the court will assume that all options
are still on the table and that defendants could advance a rational basis argument. With this
in play, discovery into any alleged penological interests for the single cell policy is relevant,
unless defendants disclaim certain interests. 	To establish a framework, the court will order
defendants to answer the following special interrogatories by the deadline indicated below:
1. 	State and describe the penological interests, if any, for Taycheedah’s policy of
assigning post-operative male-to-female transgender prisoners to single cells.
Case: 3:24-cv-00530-jdp Document #: 27 Filed: 01/14/26 Page 4 of 5

5
2. 	State and describe the penological interests, if any, for Taycheedah’s policy of
assigning plaintiff to her single cell.
These interrogatories will not count towards plaintiff’s discovery limits. 	Defendants
will have the standard 30 days to respond. 	If any more discovery disputes arise, the parties
must meet and confer in good faith before seeking additional court intervention.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Dkt. 24, is DENIED.
2. 	All defendants must respond to the two special interrogatories within 30 days of
this order.
Entered January 14, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00530-jdp Document #: 27 Filed: 01/14/26 Page 5 of 5