Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY W. MUNDY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL 

STAFF, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF Nos. 3, 13, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37)

Plaintiff Stanley W. 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 5, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

(ECF No. 13) recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) be 

denied for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to name a proper defendant. The findings and 

recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (ECF No. 13 at 3.) Plaintiff filed objections on 

May 23, 2022, and the objections largely restate Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 14.)

On December 5, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a second set of findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 26) recommending that Plaintiff’s second motion for a preliminary 

injunction (ECF No. 25) be denied for failure to state a claim in Plaintiff’s first amended 

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 40 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 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

2

complaint and for failure “to show that irreparable harm is likely to occur in the absence of

preliminary injunctive relief” (id. at 2). The findings and recommendations were served on 

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

days of service. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations 

on December 23, 2022, restating his claims. (ECF No. 27.) 

On March 31, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a third set of findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 37) recommending that Plaintiff’s third and fourth motions for a 

preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 35, 36) be denied for failure to serve or properly name 

Defendants, failure to state a claim in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and for failure to 

establish the requisite standards for a preliminary injunction (ECF No 37). The findings and 

recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of service. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings 

and recommendations on April 26, 2023, largely restating his claims. (ECF No. 38.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 5, 2022; December 5, 2022; 

and March 31, 2023 (ECF Nos. 13, 26, 37), are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 3, 25, 35, 36) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 40 Filed 06/02/23 Page 2 of 2