by Chuck Sharman

On March 3, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted dismissal to a group of cases filed by federal prisoner Jeremy “Grace” Pinson, 39, after she agreed to accept a $95,000 settlement from the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), resolving civil rights claims arising from her treatment while incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary (USP) in Tucson.

As PLN reported, the district court earlier ordered the BOP to pay Pinson $10,000 for a claim filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) after guard Miguel Vazquez negligently failed to protect her from attempted rape by her cellmate, Ricki Makhimetas. The Court also awarded Pinson another $243 for self-­inflicted cuts with a razor that the same guard—who knew she was suicidal—handed to her inside a paper envelope. But she was denied recovery for the attempted rape because the district court determined that she suffered no physical injury, which is a requirement for damages under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. [See: PLN, Oct. 2024, p.46.]

Pinson appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, only to voluntarily dismiss her case in October 2024—most likely because negotiations for the blanket settlement were far enough along. See: Pinson v. United States, USCA (9th Cir.), Case No. 24-­04458; and Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, USDC (D. Ariz.), Case No. 4:19-­cv-­00422. 

It was unclear whether any action was taken against Makhimetas or Vazquez. Among the other cases that Pinson settled with the agreement was another 2019 claim for the BOP’s failure to treat her gender dysphoria and refusal to provide sex reassignment surgery. See: Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, USDC (D. Ariz.), Case No. 4:19-­cv-­00235, along with Pinson’s appeal of its partial dismissal, Pinson v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, USCA (9th Cir.), Case No. 22-­1568.

Also included was a 2022 claim for the BOP’s refusal to consider her transfer to a woman’s prison. Pinson argued that the prison system had updated its Female Offender Manual to make certain accommodations to LGBTQ women prisoners without making any corresponding changes in policy for LGBTQ prisoners held in men’s prisons. See: Pinson v. Fed. Bureau Prisons, USDC (D. Ariz.), Case No. 4:22-­cv-­00298.

Another included claim was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in 2023 after the BOP refused to consider Pinson for its Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury. Because “her sex assigned at birth is male, and … she possesses male genitalia,” she was denied the benefits of the FIT program’s “cognitive behavioral therapy for substance use disorders, mental illness, and trauma-­related disorders, as well as vocational training,” as the district court recalled. Its decision on December 1, 2023, gave a green light only to those claims that fell under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. See: Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213922 (D. Conn.).

A fifth claim included in the settlement was filed in 2023 in the District of Arizona, accusing staff at USP-­Tuscon of subjecting to Pinson to retaliatory solitary confinement in the Special Housing Unit after failing to protect her from a vicious assault by fellow prisoner Tyrone Brown. Eventually, Pinson said, staffers resorted to providing false and misleading information about her to secure her transfer to USP-­Allenwood in Pennsylvania. See: Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, USDC (D. Ariz.), Case No. 4:23-­cv-­00442. 

Four other cases were specifically settled by the agreement: Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, USDC (D. Ariz.), Case No. 4:23-­cv-­00417; Pinson v. Waite, USDC (D. Ariz.), Case No. 4:22-­cv-­00375; Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, USDC (D. Ariz.), Case No. 4:19-­cv-­00401; and Pinson v. Gutierrez, USDC (D. Ariz.), Case No. 4:23-­cv-­00273. In addition, Pinson agreed to withdraw appeals to five dismissed cases: Pinson v. United States, USCA (9th Cir.), Case No. 22-­16339; Pinson v. von Blanckensee, USCA (9th Cir.), Case No. 23-­15025; Pinson v. Othon, USCA (9th Cir.), Case No. 21-­15580; Pinson v. Estrada, USCA (9th Cir.), Case No. 24-­5889; and Pinson v. Unknown Party, USCA (9th Cir.), Case No. 24-­07551. 

The last case was among the first Pinson filed after reaching USP-­Tucson, when she agreed to assist officials identifying fellow former gang members and was “snitch-­jacketed” in return. As PLN reported, the Ninth Circuit let another BOP prisoner sue over being labeled a “snitch” by venal guards before the Supreme Court of the U.S. shut that down in October 2022, calling it an impermissible extension to new circumstances of the right to sue the government first granted in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.388 (1971). [See: PLN, Apr. 2023, p.32.]

Pinson was aided in her settlement agreement by attorney Lisa Bivens of Zwillinger Wulkan in Phoenix. Otherwise she proceeded pro se—challenging enough for one case, but truly impressive with so many cases, and she is to be commended. According to the BOP’s website, Pinson is currently held at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, with release expected in early 2027.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case