1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY W. MUNDY, Case No. 1:22-cv-0401 KES SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN 13 v. PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL EXHAUST ADMINSTRATIVE REMEDIES, MEDICAL STAFF, et al., AND DISMISSING UNEXHAUSTED 15 CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants. 16 Doc. 90 17 18 Stanley A. Mundy asserts the defendants violated his civil rights arising under the Eighth 19 Amendment. See generally Doc. 34, 51. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting 20 that Mundy “failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as to Defendants M. Logan, 21 O. Onyeje, S. Long, M. Conanan, and K. Gomez Pimentel prior to filing suit as required by the 22 Prison Litigation Reform Act.”1 Doc. 79 at 1. Mundy opposed the motion and submitted exhibits 23 that included grievances, responses, and medical documents. Docs. 84, 85. The matter was 24 referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 The magistrate judge found it undisputed that there was a grievance procedure at Pleasant 26 Valley State Prison. Doc. 90 at 10, 13. The magistrate judge observed that Mundy submitted 27 1 Defendant J. Macomber concedes Mundy exhausted his administrative remedies against him 28 and does not join in the motion for summary judgment. Doc. 79-1 at 6, n. 1 1 four health care grievances in the relevant period, three of which were exhausted through all 2 levels of review: PVSP HC 21000357, PVSP HC 22000032, and PVSP HC 21000435. Id. at 10. 3 The magistrate judge also noted that Mundy’s exhibits showed “several other grievances in which 4 [he] received final level decisions, including the grant of an appeal.” Id. (citing Doc. 84 at 18-19, 5 30-42). The magistrate judge determined Mundy’s exhausted grievances showed the 6 administrative “process was not a ‘dead end’ or so ‘opaque’ that exhaustion was futile.” Id. at 11. 7 The magistrate judge reviewed each of the healthcare grievances—including PVSP HC 8 21000357, PVSP HC 22000032, and PVSP HC 21000435—to evaluate whether Mundy 9 exhausted his claims. Doc. 90 at 13-16. The magistrate judge found Grievance No. PVSP HC 10 21000357 was sufficient “to exhaust [the] deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Gomez 11 Pimentel for the failure to provide follow-up cauterization for his rectal bleeding following the 12 colonoscopy in July/August 2021, as pled in the operative second amended complaint.” Id. at 14. 13 The magistrate judge found Grievance No. PVSP HC 21000357 did not exhaust administrative 14 remedies, because Mundy attempted to raise new claims at the appellate level of review and “did 15 not give adequate notice that [he] challenged any of the Defendants alleged failure to provide him 16 with a non-soy diet and adequate medical treatment while housed at PVSP.” Id. at 15. Similarly, 17 the magistrate judge found Grievance No. PVSP HC 21000435 did not exhaust any of the claims 18 at issue because Mundy “failed to name any Defendant in this grievance and attempted to 19 improperly raise a new issue regarding his non-soy diet at the second level of review.” Id. 20 The magistrate judge also observed that “none of the grievances name Defendants Long, 21 Logan, Onyeje, and Conanan.” Doc. 90 at 16. The magistrate judge found, “There is no 22 reference to nurses, where the nurses worked, specific appointments dates and times, or any other 23 information that would put officials on notice that specific medical staff could be providing 24 inadequate medical care.” Id. at 17. As a result, the magistrate judge determined the identified 25 grievances did not give notice to prison officials that “two nurses (Defendants Long and Logan) 26 and chief medical executives (Defendants Conanan and Onyeje) were involved in any of the 27 allegations addressed by Plaintiff’s grievances.” Id. 28 The magistrate judge also found Mundy did not identify evidence supporting a conclusion 1 that he feared retaliation or was deterred from the submission of grievances. Id. at 11-12. The 2 magistrate judge concluded Mundy did not “submit[] admissible evidence to demonstrate that the 3 administrative remedy process was not available to him.” Id. at 13. To the extent Mundy 4 asserted his grievances would not have been investigated, the magistrate judge found that 5 “speculation that a grievance would be denied or not investigated is not sufficient to excuse 6 exhaustion.” Id. (citation omitted). Finally, the magistrate judge acknowledged that Mundy 7 “submitted several non-healthcare grievances” with his opposition, as well as “three reasonable 8 accommodation requests.” Id. at 17 (citing Doc. 84 at 114-116, 120-121, 136-137). The 9 magistrate judge found these filings did not “satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement.” 10 Id. at 18; see also id. at 17-19. 11 The magistrate judge recommended the Court deny the exhaustion motion as to the 12 “deliberate indifference claim against Gomez Pimentel regarding [] the failure to provide follow- 13 up cauterization for his rectal bleeding following the colonoscopy in July/August 2021,” and 14 grant the motion “in all other respects.” Doc. 90 at 19. The magistrate judge recommended the 15 claims against Long, Logan, Onyeje, and Conanan be “dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to 16 exhaust the administrative remedies.” Id. 17 On October 7, 2025, the Court served the findings and recommendations on all parties and 18 notified them that any objections were due within 21 days. Doc. 90 at 19. The Court also 19 advised that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 20 on appeal.” Id. at 19-20 (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)). 21 Defendants did not file objections. 22 Mundy filed objections dated October 31, 2025. Doc. 91. Mundy agrees with the 23 findings that the prison had a grievance system in place and that he filed four healthcare 24 grievances. Id. at 1. But Mundy maintains that the policy was “opaque” and that he was thwarted 25 “from the grievance process through machination, misrepresentation or intimidation.” Id. Mundy 26 contends he “was new to the Grievance System” and “had no training in the law or help with an 27 unfamiliar grievance system.” Id. at 2. He asserts the grievance forms do not contain a warning 28 that “you must put all defendants or violators names,” and claims he was not notified that the 1 failure to do so would result in a lack of exhaustion. Id. Mundy also contends the medical staff 2 did not wear name tags, which denied “easy identification of violators.” Id. at 3. Mundy 3 maintains his “ability to comply with an unknown and un-understandable grievance policy and 4 exhaustion should not be required under these exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 4 (emphasis 5 omitted). 6 As the magistrate judge observed, Mundy successfully submitted several grievances to 7 prison officials in the relevant period, including healthcare grievances and non-healthcare 8 grievances. Mundy’s evident ability to engage in the administrative grievance process 9 undermines his argument that the process was so opaque as to render the process unavailable. 10 Further, as the magistrate judge found, Mundy does not present any evidence supporting his 11 argument that he suffered from “misrepresentation or intimidation” by the defendants that 12 rendered the administrative process unavailable.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY W. MUNDY, Case No. 1:22-cv-0401 KES SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN 13 v. PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL EXHAUST ADMINSTRATIVE REMEDIES, MEDICAL STAFF, et al., AND DISMISSING UNEXHAUSTED 15 CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants. 16 Doc. 90 17 18 Stanley A. Mundy asserts the defendants violated his civil rights arising under the Eighth 19 Amendment. See generally Doc. 34, 51. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting 20 that Mundy “failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as to Defendants M. Logan, 21 O. Onyeje, S. Long, M. Conanan, and K. Gomez Pimentel prior to filing suit as required by the 22 Prison Litigation Reform Act.”1 Doc. 79 at 1. Mundy opposed the motion and submitted exhibits 23 that included grievances, responses, and medical documents. Docs. 84, 85. The matter was 24 referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 The magistrate judge found it undisputed that there was a grievance procedure at Pleasant 26 Valley State Prison. Doc. 90 at 10, 13. The magistrate judge observed that Mundy submitted 27 1 Defendant J. Macomber concedes Mundy exhausted his administrative remedies against him 28 and does not join in the motion for summary judgment. Doc. 79-1 at 6, n. 1 1 four health care grievances in the relevant period, three of which were exhausted through all 2 levels of review: PVSP HC 21000357, PVSP HC 22000032, and PVSP HC 21000435. Id. at 10. 3 The magistrate judge also noted that Mundy’s exhibits showed “several other grievances in which 4 [he] received final level decisions, including the grant of an appeal.” Id. (citing Doc. 84 at 18-19, 5 30-42). The magistrate judge determined Mundy’s exhausted grievances showed the 6 administrative “process was not a ‘dead end’ or so ‘opaque’ that exhaustion was futile.” Id. at 11. 7 The magistrate judge reviewed each of the healthcare grievances—including PVSP HC 8 21000357, PVSP HC 22000032, and PVSP HC 21000435—to evaluate whether Mundy 9 exhausted his claims. Doc. 90 at 13-16. The magistrate judge found Grievance No. PVSP HC 10 21000357 was sufficient “to exhaust [the] deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Gomez 11 Pimentel for the failure to provide follow-up cauterization for his rectal bleeding following the 12 colonoscopy in July/August 2021, as pled in the operative second amended complaint.” Id. at 14. 13 The magistrate judge found Grievance No. PVSP HC 21000357 did not exhaust administrative 14 remedies, because Mundy attempted to raise new claims at the appellate level of review and “did 15 not give adequate notice that [he] challenged any of the Defendants alleged failure to provide him 16 with a non-soy diet and adequate medical treatment while housed at PVSP.” Id. at 15. Similarly, 17 the magistrate judge found Grievance No. PVSP HC 21000435 did not exhaust any of the claims 18 at issue because Mundy “failed to name any Defendant in this grievance and attempted to 19 improperly raise a new issue regarding his non-soy diet at the second level of review.” Id. 20 The magistrate judge also observed that “none of the grievances name Defendants Long, 21 Logan, Onyeje, and Conanan.” Doc. 90 at 16. The magistrate judge found, “There is no 22 reference to nurses, where the nurses worked, specific appointments dates and times, or any other 23 information that would put officials on notice that specific medical staff could be providing 24 inadequate medical care.” Id. at 17. As a result, the magistrate judge determined the identified 25 grievances did not give notice to prison officials that “two nurses (Defendants Long and Logan) 26 and chief medical executives (Defendants Conanan and Onyeje) were involved in any of the 27 allegations addressed by Plaintiff’s grievances.” Id. 28 The magistrate judge also found Mundy did not identify evidence supporting a conclusion 1 that he feared retaliation or was deterred from the submission of grievances. Id. at 11-12. The 2 magistrate judge concluded Mundy did not “submit[] admissible evidence to demonstrate that the 3 administrative remedy process was not available to him.” Id. at 13. To the extent Mundy 4 asserted his grievances would not have been investigated, the magistrate judge found that 5 “speculation that a grievance would be denied or not investigated is not sufficient to excuse 6 exhaustion.” Id. (citation omitted). Finally, the magistrate judge acknowledged that Mundy 7 “submitted several non-healthcare grievances” with his opposition, as well as “three reasonable 8 accommodation requests.” Id. at 17 (citing Doc. 84 at 114-116, 120-121, 136-137). The 9 magistrate judge found these filings did not “satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement.” 10 Id. at 18; see also id. at 17-19. 11 The magistrate judge recommended the Court deny the exhaustion motion as to the 12 “deliberate indifference claim against Gomez Pimentel regarding [] the failure to provide follow- 13 up cauterization for his rectal bleeding following the colonoscopy in July/August 2021,” and 14 grant the motion “in all other respects.” Doc. 90 at 19. The magistrate judge recommended the 15 claims against Long, Logan, Onyeje, and Conanan be “dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to 16 exhaust the administrative remedies.” Id. 17 On October 7, 2025, the Court served the findings and recommendations on all parties and 18 notified them that any objections were due within 21 days. Doc. 90 at 19. The Court also 19 advised that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 20 on appeal.” Id. at 19-20 (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)). 21 Defendants did not file objections. 22 Mundy filed objections dated October 31, 2025. Doc. 91. Mundy agrees with the 23 findings that the prison had a grievance system in place and that he filed four healthcare 24 grievances. Id. at 1. But Mundy maintains that the policy was “opaque” and that he was thwarted 25 “from the grievance process through machination, misrepresentation or intimidation.” Id. Mundy 26 contends he “was new to the Grievance System” and “had no training in the law or help with an 27 unfamiliar grievance system.” Id. at 2. He asserts the grievance forms do not contain a warning 28 that “you must put all defendants or violators names,” and claims he was not notified that the 1 failure to do so would result in a lack of exhaustion. Id. Mundy also contends the medical staff 2 did not wear name tags, which denied “easy identification of violators.” Id. at 3. Mundy 3 maintains his “ability to comply with an unknown and un-understandable grievance policy and 4 exhaustion should not be required under these exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 4 (emphasis 5 omitted). 6 As the magistrate judge observed, Mundy successfully submitted several grievances to 7 prison officials in the relevant period, including healthcare grievances and non-healthcare 8 grievances. Mundy’s evident ability to engage in the administrative grievance process 9 undermines his argument that the process was so opaque as to render the process unavailable. 10 Further, as the magistrate judge found, Mundy does not present any evidence supporting his 11 argument that he suffered from “misrepresentation or intimidation” by the defendants that 12 rendered the administrative process unavailable. To the extent Mundy asserts that the court 13 should excuse the failure to exhaust his administrative remedies because he was unaware that he 14 was required to name identify “all defendants or violators,” his asserted lack of knowledge of 15 this requirement does not excuse the failure to comply with the grievance process. See Ross v. 16 Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 645 (2016) (misunderstanding of prison’s grievance procedure does not 17 render process “unavailable” for exhaustion purposes). A “plaintiff's lack of legal knowledge 18 that he was required to exhaust through all levels of administrative review before filing suit in 19 federal court” does not excuse the exhaustion requirement. Stowers v. Hrabko, 2020 WL 20 6075654, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2020) (citing Gurley v. Clark, 620 F. App’x 671, 673 (10th Cir. 21 2015) (“Lack of knowledge of the exhaustion requirement does not excuse an inmate’s failure to 22 exhaust administrative procedures”)). 23 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de novo review of this 24 matter. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including the objections, the Court concludes that 25 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Mundy’s 26 objections essentially restate arguments the magistrate judge properly addressed, and he does not 27 identify any legal error in the magistrate judge’s analysis. 28 The Court ORDERS: ] 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 7, 2025 (Doc. 90) are 2 ADOPTED in full. 3 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust 4 administrative remedies (Doc. 79) is DENIED as to the deliberate indifference 5 claim against Gomez Pimentel regarding the failure to provide follow-up 6 cauterization for plaintiffs rectal bleeding following the colonoscopy in 7 July/August 2021, and GRANTED in all other respects, including as to plaintiffs 8 claims against Long, Logan, Onyeje, and Conanan. 9 3. The deliberate indifference claims against defendants Long, Logan, Onyeye, and 10 Conanan are DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative 11 remedies. 12 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket and terminate Long, Logan, 13 Onyeje, and Conana as defendants. 14 5. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 15 16 17 | [TIS SO ORDERED. _ 18 Dated: _ March 24, 2026 4h | | 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT □□□□□
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28