Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00059/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00059-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City and County of Sacramento
Defendant
County of Sacramento
Defendant
Nancy Gallagher
Defendant
Asa Hambly
Defendant
J. Holt
Defendant
Scott Jones
Defendant
Susan Kroner
Defendant
Tammy Morin
Defendant
Stanley W. Mundy
Plaintiff
Robert Padilla
Defendant
Glayol Sahba
Defendant

Document Text:

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.

CITY AND COUNTY OF 

SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-00059-CKD P

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF 

COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE FOR 

CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

I. Screening Requirement

On August 16, 2023, plaintiff submitted an amended complaint that is now before the 

court for screening. 

As plaintiff was previously advised, 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). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 

prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

Case 2:23-cv-00059-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 8
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

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

II. Allegations in the First Amended Complaint

Between June 2017 and June 2021, plaintiff was an inmate at the Sacramento County 

Main Jail. The allegations in the complaint do not indicate whether plaintiff was a pretrial 

detainee or a convicted defendant during this time frame.1 In this action, plaintiff sues the City 

and County of Sacramento; Scott Jones, the Sheriff of Sacramento County; several doctors and 

nurses; and various John and Jane Does employed at the Sacramento County Main Jail. 

Plaintiff generally asserts that he was diagnosed with a severe food allergy to soy and 

informed various custodial and medical staff at the Sacramento County Main Jail about this 

condition. Plaintiff suffered hundreds of severe reactions and injuries during a six-month period 

because defendants failed to warn him or protect him from the soy that was in the food they 

served inmates. 

As to defendant Jones, plaintiff specifically alleges that he maintained a jail policy of not 

properly labeling foods containing allergens and not providing non-soy or alternative diets for 

inmates with soy allergies. Plaintiff asserts that as a result of this policy he was injured because 

this was a known risk to plaintiff’s health. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Jones failed to 

train jail staff to recognize common allergic reactions. This failure to train prevented plaintiff 

from obtaining necessary medical attention for his allergic reactions to soy. 

As to the named medical staff in the amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that defendants 

Holt, Morin, Sahba, Padilla, Hambly, Gallagher, and Kroner delayed and denied necessary 

medical treatment for his numerous reactions to the soy in his food. Defendant John/Jane Does, 

who are identified as a primary nurse and a medical doctor at the Sacramento County Main Jail, 

were also deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs by failing to provide him 

1 As a result, the court liberally construes these claims as being raised under the Eighth and 

Fourteenth Amendments. Generally, inmates who sue prison officials for damages for injuries 

suffered while in custody may do so under the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual 

Punishment Clause or, if not yet convicted, under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process 

Clause. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979); Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 

1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). But under both clauses, the inmate must show that the 

prison official acted with deliberate indifference. Castro, 833 F.3d at 1068.

Case 2:23-cv-00059-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 8
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

with a non-soy diet and by failing to provide him with reasonable medical care for his allergic 

reactions. 

I. Legal Standards

The following legal standards are provided based on plaintiff’s pro se status as well as the 

nature of the allegations in the complaint.

A. Linkage

The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 

in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 

Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). To state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link 

each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 

plaintiff's federal rights.

B. Supervisory Liability

Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their 

subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) 

(“In a § 1983 suit ... the term “supervisory liability” is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, 

each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding is only liable for his or her own

misconduct.”). When the named defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between 

the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged; that is, a 

plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the defendant either personally participated in or 

directed the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights or knew of the violations and failed to act 

to prevent them. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978).

/////

Case 2:23-cv-00059-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 05/29/24 Page 3 of 8
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

II. Analysis

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A 

screening, finds that it states cognizable claims against defendants Jones, Holt, Morin, Sahba, 

Padilla, Hambly, Gallagher, Kroner, and the John/Jane Doe medical defendants for Eighth and 

Fourteenth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference and a Monell2 claim against the County 

of Sacramento.

3

 

However, the remaining John Doe defendants are named in the complaint solely based on 

their supervisory capacity. This is not a sufficient basis to attach § 1983 liability. See Fayle v. 

Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979). Therefore, the court does not find that plaintiff has 

sufficiently alleged a cognizable claim against either the John Doe Administrator of dietary food 

or the John Doe Supervisor in charge of training, hiring, and dietary needs compliance at the 

Sacramento County Main Jail. 

Furthermore, the amended complaint does not contain any allegations linking defendant 

Steinberg, the Mayor of Sacramento, to the asserted constitutional violations. To state a claim for 

relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or 

omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff's federal rights. As a result of this deficiency, 

the undersigned recommends dismissing this defendant. Because it does not appear to the court 

that this defect is curable, defendant Steinberg should be dismissed without leave to amend. See

Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) 

(holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile 

amendments). 

Additionally, the undersigned finds that the amended complaint does not state a separate 

2 See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (establishing municipal 

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

3 The Jane Doe defendants employed as a registered nurse and medical doctor at the Sacramento 

County Main Jail will not be served with process until plaintiff has identified their real names and 

amended the complaint to substitute these defendants’ actual names. The burden is on plaintiff to 

promptly discover the full names of these Jane Doe defendants. See Robinett v. Correctional 

Training Facility, No. C 09-2845 SI (pr), 2010 WL 2867696 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2010). 

Case 2:23-cv-00059-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 05/29/24 Page 4 of 8
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

claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) based on plaintiff’s medical treatment 

for his soy allergy. The treatment, or lack of treatment, for a specific medical condition does not 

provide a basis upon which to impose liability under the ADA. Burger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 

882, 882 (8th Cir. 2005) (medical treatment decisions not a basis for ADA claim); Fitzgerald v. 

Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005) (Medical decisions not ordinarily 

within scope of ADA); Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The ADA does not 

create a remedy for medical malpractice.”). Plaintiff’s allegations go to the adequacy of the 

treatment or assistance he was receiving for his food allergy, not to the denial of services because 

of his disability. “The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate 

treatment for disability.” Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citing Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996)); see also Bryant, 84 F.3d at 249 

(“[T]he Act would not be violated by a prison’s simply failing to attend to the medical needs of 

its disabled prisoners. . . . The ADA does not create a remedy for medical malpractice.”). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that support a claim he was subjected to intentional 

discrimination by reason of his disability and excluded from participation in any program or 

activity. It does not appear to the court that this defect is curable by further amending the 

complaint. Therefore, it is recommended that the ADA claim be dismissed without leave to 

amend.

III. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 

intended as legal advice. 

The court has reviewed the allegations in your first amended complaint and determined 

that some state cognizable claims and others do not. The court is ordering service on defendants 

Jones, Holt, Morin, Sahba, Padilla, Hambly, Gallagher, Kroner, and the County of Sacramento, 

but recommending that the remaining claims and defendants be dismissed without further leave to 

amend. 

If you disagree with this recommendation to dismiss certain claims and defendants, you 

may file a written explanation as to why it is not correct within 14 days from the date of this 

Case 2:23-cv-00059-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 05/29/24 Page 5 of 8
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

6

order. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign this matter to a district court judge.

2. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), the Court has 

screened and found service of the complaint appropriate. If a defendant either waives service or 

is personally served, the defendant is required to reply to the complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2).

3. Service shall be initiated on the following defendants employed at the Sacramento 

County Main Jail between June 2017 and June 2021: 

a. Scott Jones, Former Sacramento County Sheriff;

b. Asa Hambly, M.D.;

c. Robert Padilla, M.D.;

d. Susan Kroner, R.N.;

e. Nancy Gallagher, R.N.;

f. J. Holt, R.N.;

g. Tammy Morin, M.D.;

h. Glayol Sahba, M.D.; and, the

i. County of Sacramento. 

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff nine USM-285 forms, one summons, an 

instruction sheet and a copy of the first amended complaint docketed on August 16, 2023.

5. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3 

above; and 

d. 10 copies of the endorsed amended complaint docketed on August 16, 

2023. 

Case 2:23-cv-00059-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 05/29/24 Page 6 of 8
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

7

6. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to 

serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the John Doe Administrator of Dietary Food, 

the John Doe Supervisor, defendant Steinberg, and the ADA claim be dismissed without further 

leave to amend.

These findings and recommendations are 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 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: May 28, 2024

12/mund0059.eService+F&R

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00059-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 05/29/24 Page 7 of 8
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

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY W. MUNDY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF 

SACRAMENTO, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-00059-CKD

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed 

_____________________:

____ completed summons form

____ completed USM-285 forms

____ copies of the ___________________ 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________ 

Plaintiff

Case 2:23-cv-00059-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 05/29/24 Page 8 of 8