Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401-10/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-KES-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Docs. 39, 49)

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

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On May 24, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

recommending that the action proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim regarding the 

failure to provide plaintiff a medically required non-soy diet at CDCR, against defendant Jeff 

Macomber, in his official capacity, and on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

claim against defendants Long, Pimentel, Onyeje, Logan, and Conanan. Doc. 39. It was further 

recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to 

state a cognizable claim for relief. Id. The findings and recommendations were served on 

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 51 Filed 10/11/24 Page 1 of 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

2

days of service. Id. at 10. Plaintiff filed objections on June 9, 2023. Doc. 41.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court has conducted a de novo review of 

this case. Plaintiff objects to the findings and recommendations, asserting that his complaint 

alleges CDCR has a policy to deny all medically prescribed or recommended diets and health 

care treatments. Doc. 41 at 1. As pled, plaintiff’s allegations appear to pertain to an alleged 

CDCR policy not to provide a medically prescribed non-soy diet. The magistrate judge 

correctly found that plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim as to this issue only against 

Secretary Jeff Macomber, in his official capacity.

Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of CDCR, CCHCS, and CALPIA, arguing that this case 

falls under the state created danger exemption and the special relationship exemption. Doc. 41 

at 2–3. However, CDCR, CCHCS and CALPIA are state agencies entitled to Eleventh 

Amendment immunity, and thus dismissal of the state agencies is proper. See Brown v. 

California Dep't of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (state agencies are immune from 

private damage actions and suits for injunctive relief). The magistrate judge correctly found 

that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Secretary Jeff Macomber in his official capacity 

for the alleged policy of failing to provide a non-soy diet. Doc. 39 at 5-6.

Plaintiff further objects to the dismissal of his claims arising from the grievance policy process

and CDCR’s failure to provide the required forms. Doc. 41 at 5-6. The magistrate judge 

correctly noted that there is no stand-alone due process right related to the administrative 

process. Id. at 8. Plaintiff argues that he was injured by the lack of help with his grievances but 

does not allege facts sufficient to show that the grievance procedure caused him a cognizable 

injury. Further, the magistrate judge correctly found that the exhibits submitted with the 

complaint showed that plaintiff was allowed to submit requests on several different occasions. 

Doc. 39 at 7.

Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to 

be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 24, 2023 (Doc. 39) are adopted 

in full; 

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 51 Filed 10/11/24 Page 2 of 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

3

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment official capacity claim 

regarding plaintiff’s non-soy diet at CDCR against defendant Jeff Macomber, and 

on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendants 

Long, Pimentel, Onyeje, Logan, and Conanan; 

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from the action for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief; 

4. Plaintiff’s motion regarding the status of his objections (Doc. 49) is terminated as 

moot; and

5. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 51 Filed 10/11/24 Page 3 of 3