STANARD V. DY, No. 21-35582 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff named Robert A. Stanard, who was an inmate in the federal prison system, sued several prison officials, claiming they violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him treatment for Hepatitis C, and his Fifth Amendment rights by discriminating against him due to his pre-trial status. Stanard sought damages under Bivens, a precedent that allows individuals to sue federal officers for constitutional rights violations. The district court dismissed Stanard’s complaint, and he appealed.
The Ninth Circuit partly affirmed and partly reversed the district court’s decision. First, the court reversed the dismissal of Stanard’s Eighth Amendment claim. The court found that his claim was not a new context for a Bivens action because it was similar to a previous case, Carlson v. Green, where the Supreme Court recognized a Bivens remedy for prison officials who were deliberately indifferent to an inmate's medical needs. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the prison officials in Stanard's case denied him care due to a Bureau of Prisons policy, while the officials in Carlson acted so inappropriately as to evidence intentional maltreatment causing death, holding that the difference in degree was not a meaningful difference that would create a new context.
However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Stanard’s Fifth Amendment claim. The court found that this claim did present a new Bivens context because it involved disparate treatment of pre-sentencing and post-sentencing inmates, a situation not previously addressed in Bivens cases. Given that this was a new context, the court then determined that special factors counseled against extending a Bivens remedy. Specifically, the existence of alternative remedial structures, such as the Bureau of Prisons' administrative remedy process, indicated that Congress, rather than the courts, should decide whether to create a new damages remedy.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights/Bivens In a Bivens action brought by Robert Stanard alleging that federal prison officials denied him treatment for Hepatitis C, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of his claim that federal prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his claim that federal prison officials discriminated against * The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
him in denying him treatment because of his pre-trial status in violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of Stanard’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. The panel held that the claim arose within an existing context as established in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), which recognized a Bivens remedy against prison officials who were deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s asthma. The panel rejected defendants’ argument that Carlson was meaningfully different because the officials in Carlson acted so inappropriately as to evidence intentional maltreatment causing death, while the officials here denied Stanard care because of a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) policy. Delaying treatment is an established example of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Even assuming Stanard received less deficient care than the inmate in Carlson, that difference in degree was not a meaningful difference giving rise to a new context. Moreover, Stanard was not simply challenging a broadly applicable BOP policy. His complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants relied on outdated medical records in refusing him treatment for Hepatitis C.
The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Stanard’s Fifth Amendment claim. The panel held that the claim arose in a new context and special factors counseled hesitation against extending Bivens given that alternative remedial structures existed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.