Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Stanley W. Mundy is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed April 6, 

2022.

I.

DISCUSSION

“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 

STANLEY W. MUNDY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL 

STAFF, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

THIS ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED

(ECF No. 3)

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 10 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 3
2

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

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. United 

States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 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.

Plaintiff seeks an order directing that he be transferred to an appropriate prison facility that 

provides proper medical treatment. Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he 

seeks in this motion. As an initial matter, the Court 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). The Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s complaint and therefore cannot find 

that he has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. 

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 Pleasant Valley State Prison or any other institution. 

Finally, although Plaintiff has set forth serious allegations regarding the actions of defendants 

named in this lawsuit, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any 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.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). In his 

motion, Plaintiff is requesting that the Court interfere with CDCR's prison administration in 

determining the housing of a prisoner. Such relief cannot be granted. Although the Court understands 

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 10 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 3
3

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

that Plaintiff is raising serious allegations regarding possible violations of Plaintiff's rights at his 

current institution, he does not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular correctional 

facility (or to be transferred from one facility to another). Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–25 

(1976); McCune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 38 (2002). The Court declines to intercede in the security issue 

presented by placement of inmates in particular housing.

II.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly 

assign a District Judge to this action.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction 

(ECF No. 3), be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” 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, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 10 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 3