Stanley v. Hollandberry

Background

Rodric P. Stanley, who is identified as a prisoner and was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute allows a person to sue for a violation of federal rights by someone acting under state law. Stanley had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Stanley alleged that he had been prescribed Norco for serious chronic injuries since 2022. He alleged that his medication tolerance increased and that he sometimes delayed taking the medication, saved pills, crushed them, and mixed them into a drink. He also alleged that physical therapy and medical equipment were discontinued after he moved to another detention facility, that surgery was not scheduled, and that Dr. Hollandberry changed his medication to liquid form in 2026.

According to the allegations, Stanley refused the liquid medication for three days because he found it less effective and tiring, after which his prescriptions were discontinued and he experienced withdrawal symptoms. He alleged that Dr. Hollandberry spoke with him twice but that he did not then receive medical care or appointments, and that she denied his request for a medical chair. He also alleged that white inmates received better medical care and supplies.

Prior Proceedings

The opinion states that Stanley had raised some allegations about 2022 medical care and equipment in an earlier state case and a prior federal case. The state court found no legal violation concerning his medical care, pain medication, or medical supplies. The prior federal case was dismissed because the same cause of action between the same parties had already resulted in a final judgment on the merits in state court.

County Claim

Stanley sought to hold Contra Costa County liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services. Municipal liability under that doctrine requires allegations that a constitutional right was violated, that the municipality had a policy, practice, or custom, that the policy reflected deliberate indifference to constitutional rights, and that it caused the alleged injury.

The court found that Stanley had provided only general allegations that he was denied medical care and equipment. It held that he had not sufficiently identified a county policy, practice, or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court directed him to identify the rights allegedly violated, provide details about the county policy or practice, and explain how it caused his injuries. The court also directed him to address whether his medication was changed to liquid form because of his alleged hoarding and use of more medication than prescribed.

Claim Against Dr. Hollandberry

The court explained that deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing both a serious medical need and that prison staff knew of the need but chose a medically unacceptable response while consciously disregarding an excessive health risk.

The court found that Stanley’s allegations about Dr. Hollandberry’s actions in 2022 and 2026 were too limited. It directed him to provide more facts about whether Dr. Hollandberry stopped his medication, how he knew who stopped it, why requiring liquid medication was medically unacceptable after the alleged hoarding, and why stopping the medication after his refusal to take the liquid form for three days amounted to deliberate indifference. He was also directed to describe Dr. Hollandberry’s involvement, if any, in denying other care, surgery, or medical equipment.

Regarding the allegation that white inmates received better care, the court directed Stanley to explain how he was similarly situated to those inmates and how his treatment differed because of race. The court also directed him to explain why the 2022 allegations should not be dismissed in light of the findings in the earlier state and federal proceedings.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint on or before October 26, 2026. The amended complaint must use the required caption and civil case number, state “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and be filed on the court’s form. It must include every claim and defendant Stanley wishes to pursue and may not incorporate earlier complaints by reference.

The court warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint by the deadline, or failure to follow the order, would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The opinion does not state that any claim was finally resolved on its merits in this order.