9th Cir.

Gutierrez v. Sandoval, et al.

June 12, 2026 ·1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG ·Unpublished · By Aisha Johnson

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a prisoner's motion to amend his complaint against a medical doctor. The court held that adding the doctor as a defendant would be futile because her actions amounted to medical negligence rather than deliberate indifference.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:03

Background

Antonio Gutierrez, a California inmate, appealed the district court’s denial of his motions to amend his complaint, modify the judgment, and award attorney’s fees. The underlying case involved claims against a registered nurse and a medical doctor regarding his medical treatment for Bell’s palsy.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion and the question of futility de novo. It found that adding Dr. Faye Montegrande as a defendant would be futile because her actions constituted medical negligence rather than deliberate indifference. The court noted that Dr. Montegrande correctly diagnosed the condition, prescribed an acceptable treatment, and instructed the plaintiff to return for follow-up. There was no evidence she was subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of nominal damages and attorney’s fees because the jury found the nurse’s conduct did not cause harm, meaning the plaintiff was not the prevailing party.

What it means going forward

The ruling reinforces that medical negligence alone does not satisfy the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference standard and prevents prisoners from recovering nominal damages or fees when they fail to prove a constitutional violation.