Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY W. MUNDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL 

STAFF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00401-ADA-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION AND MOTION 

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

(ECF Nos. 35, 36)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTYONE DAYS

Plaintiff Stanley W. Mundy (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) 

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for an emergency injunction (ECF No. 

35) and for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 36), both filed on March 29, 2023.1 For the 

following reasons, the Court shall recommend both motions be denied. 

///

///

1 Plaintiff also filed a second amended complaint on March 29, 2023, which the Court shall address by separate 

screening order. 

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 37 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 

v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 

may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 

omitted).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 

464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 

power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 

the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 

of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 

Federal right.”

Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 

officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 

U.S., 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Rather, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 

in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 

U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Injunction (ECF No. 35) 

Plaintiff’s first motion for injunctive relief seeks an order requiring the California 

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 37 Filed 03/31/23 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional Health Care Services, 

Mule Creek State Prison staff, and Warden Patrick Cavello to provide him the non-soy diet, 

“cardiac dash,” and cardiac heart health diets prescribed by his doctors. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff 

claims the diet he is currently being provided causes hives and potential cancer; in support of this 

statement, he cites to purported medical exhibits that are not attached to his motion. 

The Court concludes Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he 

seeks in this motion. As an initial matter, the Court notes it is required to screen complaints 

brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is 

subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, the Court has yet to screen 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and therefore cannot find that he has shown a likelihood of 

success on the merits. Indeed, the Court notes the operative second amended complaint follows 

two screening orders in which the Court determined Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to 

state a claim. (See ECF Nos. 16, 29.). 

In addition, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant has yet made an 

appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants or any other 

prison staff at Mule Creek State Prison—where Plaintiff appears to be currently housed—or any 

other institution. 

Furthermore, the Court concludes Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to 

show he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order and/or 

preliminary injunction. While the lack of a proper medical diet can present an imminent risk of 

irreparable harm, this is not true in every case. The risk of harm from some medical conditions is 

not imminent. An additional fact that appears to weigh against a finding of imminent risk is the 

fact that Plaintiff raised similar concerns regarding the ill-effects of his non-soy diet in a separate 

motion for injunctive relief filed nearly a year ago (ECF No. 3), and again in a subsequent motion 

for injunctive relief filed in December 2022 (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff does not indicate imminent 

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 37 Filed 03/31/23 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

conditions worse than previously alleged, and the Court notes it has recommended that both prior 

motions be denied. (See ECF Nos. 10, 26.)

2

 As such, Plaintiff fails to show that irreparable harm 

is likely to occur in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief. Finally, Plaintiff has not 

presented any evidence that the balance of equities is in his favor or that preliminary injunctive 

relief would be in the public’s interest. Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s motion 

for emergency injunctive relief be denied.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 36) 

Plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunctive relief seeks an order prohibiting 

CDCR, MCSP, “all staff” and Warden Cavello from transferring Plaintiff to another institution. 

(ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff claims the transfer is retaliatory because of his pursuit of securing his 

dietary needs. This motion should also be denied. 

As previously noted, because the operative second amended complaint (filed concurrently 

with the instant motions for injunctive relief) has not yet been screened, the Court cannot 

conclude Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits. Again, the Court lacks jurisdiction 

over nonparty prison officials. Finally, the Court does not find any showing of imminent and 

irreparable harm in the absence of the requested injunctive relief. In short, Plaintiff is requesting 

that the Court interfere with CDCR’s prison administration in determining the housing of a 

prisoner. But, as the Court articulated to Plaintiff in its prior order recommending the denial of a 

similar motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated 

at a particular correctional facility (or to be transferred from one facility to another). (See ECF 

Nos. 3, 10); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–25 (1976); McCune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 38 

(2002). The Court therefore declines to intercede in the security issue presented by placement of 

inmates in particular housing. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief 

should also be denied. 

///

///

2 The Court notes this and other findings and recommendations recommending denial of Plaintiff’s multiple motions 

for “emergency” injunctive relief (see ECF Nos. 10, 13, 26) are currently pending before the District Judge. 

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 37 Filed 03/31/23 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency injunction (ECF No. 35) be DENIED; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 36) be DENIED. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within twentyone (21) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff 

is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 

on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 37 Filed 03/31/23 Page 5 of 5