Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01130/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01130-14/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

ANTONIO GUTIERREZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. SANDOVAL,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01130-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND TO GRANT 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

AMEND IN PART

(Docs. 113, 79, 95)

I. BACKGROUND

Antonio Gutierrez, Jr., is proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As alleged in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 31), 

this case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Sandoval, a nurse, for deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Plaintiff’s 

claim against Defendant for medical malpractice based on allegations that Defendant failed to 

provide or summon care for Plaintiff on August 17, 2019. (Docs. 26 & 31.)

Plaintiff alleged that on Saturday, August 17, 2019, he became aware that the right side 

of his face was numb, that most of his facial muscles on the right side of his face were paralyzed, 

and he could not blink his right eye. Plaintiff was taken to the medical clinic, where he was seen 

by Defendant. “After some cursory tests and a check of his electronic medical records, Sandoval 

pronounced Gutierrez to be “healthy,” told him to return to his cell and drink some water and 

Case 1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG Document 120 Filed 03/29/24 Page 1 of 7
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

advised him that his condition (which she did not name) would eventually ‘heal itself.’” (Doc. 

31, 4–5.)

However, Plaintiff’s symptoms worsened. The following Monday, August 19, 2019, 

Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Faye Montegrande, who “quickly” diagnosed Plaintiff with Bell’s Palsy 

and provided medication. (Id. at 5.) However, Plaintiff “continues to suffer facial numbness, 

pain, and paralysis. His smile is uneven, his right eyelid twitches constantly, and his entire face 

has a ‘droopy’ appearance that it did not have previously.” (Id.)

On March 14, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment “on the grounds 

that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no evidence that 

Defendant Sandoval was deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of the Plaintiff and 

there is no medical evidence that the lapse of 40 hours between the onset of Plaintiff’s symptoms 

and his treatment made any difference in Plaintiff’s outcome.” (Doc. 79 at 2.) The same day, 

Defendant filed an amended declaration of Janine K. Jeffery in support of the motion. (Doc. 80.) 

On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed his opposition. (Doc. 81, 82, 87) On April 17, 2023, 

Defendant filed her reply. (Doc. 88.) The Court held a hearing on the motion on May 12, 2023. 

(Doc. 90.)

Additionally, on July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Third Amended 

Complaint (TAC), seeking to add Dr. Faye Montegrande as a defendant as well as to remove 

certain admission in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). (Doc. 95.) Defendant Sandoval 

filed an opposition on August 11, 2023. (Doc. 100.) Plaintiff filed a reply on August 21, 2023. 

(Doc. 101.) The Court held a hearing on the motion on September 15, 2023. (Doc. 103.)

II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On January 29, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge entered Findings and 

Recommendations, recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied

and that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 113.) 

As to Defendant’s motion, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s evidence creates genuine 

disputes of fact as to whether Plaintiff was harmed by Nurse Sandoval’s failure to provide proper 

medical care, notwithstanding that Dr. Montegrande had a later opportunity to provide that care. 

Case 1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG Document 120 Filed 03/29/24 Page 2 of 7
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

(Doc. 113 at 18.) Construing disputed facts in favor of Plaintiff, the magistrate concluded that 

Nurse Sandoval’s actions (or lack thereof) deprived Plaintiff of medical treatment needed to treat 

his serious medical condition within the critical window of time. (Id.)

With respect to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, the magistrate judge 

found at an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Montegrande would ultimately be futile and 

that Defendant Sandoval would be prejudiced by adding another defendant to the case that has 

been pending since 2020. (Id. at 10.)

But another reason why Plaintiff sought leave to file a TAC was because it alters the 

factual allegations regarding Dr. Montegrande’s treatment of Plaintiff, which may be relevant to 

Plaintiff’s pending claims against Defendant Sandoval. (Id.) Specifically, while Plaintiff’s 

current operative complaint asserted that Dr. Montegrande provided the correct medications 

when she treated Plaintiff, the TAC alleges that Dr. Montegrande’s prescriptions were incorrect 

both in type of medication and dosage. (Id.) Plaintiff asserted that his counsel learned that Dr.

Montegrande’s prescription was in error when Plaintiff’s expert witness prepared an expert 

report in this case. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff’s expert disclosed this theory to Defendant in his expert 

report dated September 9, 2022 (Doc. 81-4), and Defendant’s expert had an opportunity to 

address this theory in Defendant’s rebuttal expert report and during expert discovery. (Doc. 113 

at 11.) Because Defendant had notice of this theory and opportunity to rebut it in the context of 

expert reports and briefing, the magistrate judge recommended granting Plaintiff’s motion for 

leave to amend his complaint to proceed with the TAC for the purpose of amending Plaintiff’s 

factual allegations to conform to the evidence and expert opinion learned after Plaintiff filed his 

complaint in this action. (Id.)

III. OBJECTIONS

On February 20, 2024, both Defendant and Plaintiff filed their objections. (Docs. 116 & 

117.)

Defendant objected to both the denial of summary judgment and the grant of Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to amend. (Doc. 116 at 1.) Defendant also asked that, if the Findings and 

Recommendations are adopted in full, she be given the right to file an answer to the new 

Case 1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG Document 120 Filed 03/29/24 Page 3 of 7
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

complaint, conduct discovery on the new issues raised, and challenge the new complaint by way 

of summary judgment. (Id.) 

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that a jury should decide whether Dr. Montegrande’s 

care rises to the level of a plausible deliberate indifference claim. (Doc. 117 at 5.) Plaintiff 

acknowledges that adding Dr. Montegrande as a defendant would require re-opening discovery, 

however, he proposes that the Court “bifurcate the two defendants’ cases, in order to allow the 

case against Sandoval to proceed to trial, and to permit an Eighth Amendment case against 

Montegrande to trail that outcome.” (Id. at 6.) 

IV. RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS.

On March 5, 202024, both Defendant and Plaintiff filed Responses to their respective 

objections. (Docs. 118 & 119.)

Defendant contends, among other things, that all Rule 15 factors weigh against granting 

Plaintiff leave to amend and that the Court “should not permit Plaintiff to add Dr. Montegrande 

as a Defendant as it would be futile, Plaintiff unduly delayed bringing the motion, brought the 

motion in bad faith, and it will prejudice Nurse Sandoval.” (Doc. 118 at 11.) Defendant also

argues against bifurcating the cases against Defendant Sandoval and Defendant Montegrande

because it creates a possibility of inconsistent verdicts and would make highly likely the 

possibility of “different monetary awards even though the injury at issue is identical in both 

cases.” (Id.)

In his response, Plaintiff maintains that because “Sandoval materially stripped Gutierrez 

of his opportunity to avoid suffering a permanent injury by eating up most of the available time 

to dodge this Bell’s palsy bullet . . . and consistent with general tort principles that a secondary 

act of negligence does not absolve the primary tortfeasor, Sandoval is still liable.” (Doc. 119 at 

9–10.) Plaintiff also argues that he acted diligently in both not pleading and then in seeking leave 

to amend to include the Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Montegrande: “In 2022, there was 

no case to be made; in 2023, with the dosage mistake and the monitoring mistake, an Eighth 

Amendment case was possible.” (Id. at 10–11.) Plaintiff further argues that he did not act in bad 

faith, that the Rule 15 factors weigh in his favor, and that Defendant Sandoval would not be 

Case 1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG Document 120 Filed 03/29/24 Page 4 of 7
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

prejudiced if the case against Dr. Montegrande is bifurcated. (Id. at 25.) 

V. ORDER

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

First, the Court finds wholly unpersuasive Defendant’s objections to the magistrate 

judges’ recommendation to deny the Defense motion for summary judgment. Defendant

advances a myopic view of the evidence that all but disregards the declaration of Defense expert 

Carol Ingalls. Though Defendant objected to the Ingalls’ declaration on hearsay grounds (see, 

e.g., Doc. 88-2 at 6), this objection was non-specific, as the magistrate judge indicated (see Doc. 

113 at 15 n. 6). 

As for the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding the motion to amend, the Court 

finds that the recommendation correctly denied leave to amend to add Dr. Montegrande as a 

defendant. As the magistrate judge indicated, granting leave to allege an Eighth Amendment 

claim against Dr. Montegrande would be futile: 

While these allegations go further than the original complaint in 

alleging harm to the Plaintiff, the Court finds that amendment to 

assert an Eighth Amendment claim would ultimately be futile. 

Even according to the TAC, Dr. Montegrande attempted to treat 

Plaintiff’s condition, including diagnosing his condition and 

promptly prescribing medication. Even if Dr. Montegrande’s 

prescription was incorrect, such action would amount at most to 

medical negligence (discussed below). Similarly, while Plaintiff 

alleges that Dr. Montegrande failed to document the encounter, 

there are no facts indicating that this failure was purposeful or 

intended to harm Plaintiff. While Plaintiff’s complaint speculates 

on potential ill-motives she might have had for failing to document 

the encounter, including to cover-up Sandoval’s failure to treat 

Plaintiff, there are no facts supporting such an allegation. The lack 

of supporting facts is especially noteworthy as the current parties 

have concluded discovery.

(Doc. 113 at 10.) Nothing in Plaintiff’s objections or responses convincingly overcomes this 

reasoning. 

Finally, the Court agrees with the recommendation to allow Plaintiff to amend the

complaint to conform his factual allegations to the evidence revealed in discovery, namely that 

Case 1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG Document 120 Filed 03/29/24 Page 5 of 7
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

the prescriptions provided by Dr. Montegrande were incorrect both in type and dosage. As the 

Findings and Recommendations explain, Defendant has been on notice of the new information 

that will form the basis of these new factual allegations since September 2022. (See Doc. 113 at 

11.) Nor will this new allegation somehow improperly allow Plaintiff to hold Nurse Sandoval 

responsible for the acts of Dr. Montegrande. (Doc. 116 at 23 (arguing that the Findings and 

Recommendations “indicate[] that state law permits Nurse Sandoval to be liable for the acts of 

Dr. Montegrande”).) This is not reflected in the Findings and Recommendations. Rather, the 

magistrate judge reasoned, correctly, that the new evidence is relevant to rebut the obviously

brewing defense that Nurse Sandoval’s own failure to provide proper medical care caused 

Plaintiff little to no actual harm because he could not have been spared ongoing Bells Palsy 

symptoms even if he had been promptly treated. (See Doc. 113 at 18 (“[T]he Court recommends 

allowing Plaintiff to proceed on his claims because Plaintiff has put forth sufficient evidence that 

Plaintiff was harmed by Nurse Sandoval’s failure to provide proper medical care, 

notwithstanding that Dr. Montegrande had a later opportunity to provide that care. Construing 

disputed facts in favor of Plaintiff, Nurse Sandoval’s actions (or lack thereof) deprived Plaintiff 

of medical treatment needed to treat his serious medical condition within the critical window of 

time. 

Moreover, the Court has found no legal support for Nurse Sandoval’s defense that she is 

not liable so long as someone later in the chain also failed to provide adequate care. The Court 

finds Defendant’s remaining objections uncompelling and will leave to the magistrate judge in 

the first instance the related questions of whether (1) discovery should be re-opened to allow the 

Defense to further explore the facts underlying these “new” allegations; and 

(2) whether there will, after amendment, (a) remain any admissions that may conflict with the 

new allegations and (b) what to do about those admissions. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on January 29, 2024 (Doc. 113) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 79) is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 95) is GRANTED in part and DENIED

Case 1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG Document 120 Filed 03/29/24 Page 6 of 7
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

in part, so that Plaintiff is allowed to proceed on his Third Amended complaint for the 

claims asserted against current Defendant Sandoval, but without adding Dr.

Montegrande as a defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2024 

Case 1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG Document 120 Filed 03/29/24 Page 7 of 7