Joe Martinez, Jr. v. Sergeant Villanueva, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00527
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 JOE MARTINEZ, JR., 1:24-cv-00527-JLT-EPG (PC) 10 11 Plaintiff, F T I H N A D T I N P G LA S I A N N T D IF R F’ E S C M O O M T M IO E N N D F A O T R I ONS 12 v. L C E O A M V P E L A TO IN F T I L B E E A D E S N EC IE O D N D AMENDED 13 SERGEANT VILLANUEVA, et al., (ECF No. 52) 14 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 15 THIRTY (30) DAYS

16 When this action arose, Plaintiff Joe Martinez Jr. was a pretrial detainee confined in 17 Madera County Jail. He now proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on May 3, 2024 (ECF No. 1) and his first amended 20 complaint on July 26, 2024, (ECF No. 11). After screening the initial complaint and the first 21 amended complaint (ECF Nos. 8, 16, 21), this case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims for 22 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and retaliation against Defendants Sergeant 23 Villanueva, Alejandra Granados, Devon Medina, and Dr. Gustavian (see ECF No. 21, 42) and 24 claim of retaliation against Defendants Alejandra Granados, Sergeant Rivera, and Captain Gil. 25 (ECF No. 21). 26 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is now before the 27 Court. (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff’s motion asks for leave to further amend his complaint to assert 28 1 claims against a new defendant, Dr. Deborah Massetti, Chief Operational Officer at Madera 2 County Jail. (Id.) Plaintiff has also lodged a second amended complaint, which includes several 3 claims that the Court has already dismissed, in addition to the proposed claims against Dr. 4 Massetti. 5 For the following reasons, the Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave 6 to file a second amended complaint, (ECF No. 52). 7 I. BACKGROUND 8 In his initial complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he slipped and fell on 9 a water puddle inside his housing unit at the Madera County Jail. (ECF No. 1 at 4). He alleged 10 that, despite two previous accidents, no safety measures were instituted, such as anti-slip mats 11 and wet floor signs, which could have prevented Plaintiff’s accident. 12 The Court screened Plaintiff’s initial complaint on June 14, 2024, finding that it failed 13 to state any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 8). 14 On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 11). In his first 15 amended complaint, Plaintiff reasserted his allegations related to his slip and fall on a water 16 puddle, and his claims related to Defendants’ failure to prevent that fall. Plaintiff’s first 17 amended complaint also alleged that he was transferred to the hospital after he fell and returned 18 to the institution on February 9, 2024, with doctor’s orders from the hospital to provide him 19 with a wheelchair or walker to help his mobility and to prevent him from falling. (Id. at 4). In 20 addition, a hospital doctor prescribed Plaintiff a lidocaine patch for pain in his lower back. (Id.) 21 Plaintiff alleged that certain Defendants ripped Plaintiff’s pain patch off and knowingly denied 22 the hospital doctor’s orders to provide a wheelchair or walker in deliberate indifference to 23 Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (Id. at 5). 24 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint also alleged that Defendants Medina, Dr. Gustavian, 25 and Debbie threatened Plaintiff that “if he continued to complain he would be written up by 26 deputies or he would be moved to the institution infirmary where there is no TV and he would 27 be alone, denying plaintiff any assistance, forcing him to suffer.” (ECF No. 11 at 5). In 28 addition, Plaintiff alleges that he overheard Defendant Alejandra Granados telling Defendants 1 Sergeant Rivera and Captain Gil about his intentions to sue the institution. (Id. at 6). Following 2 that, they ordered others to move him into bed, from where he fell out, suffering further injuries 3 and another epileptic seizure. (ECF No. 11 at 6–7). 4 On November 15, 2024, the Court issued findings and recommendations to the District 5 Judge recommending that the action proceed only on certain claims. (ECF No. 16). On April 6 10, 2025, the District Judge adopted this Court’s Findings and Recommendations in full. (ECF 7 No. 21). As such, the case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical 8 needs and retaliation claims against Defendants Villanueva, Alejandra Granados, Medina, Dr. 9 Gustavian, Debbie, and on his retaliation claim against Defendant Alejandra Granados, 10 Sergeant Rivera, and Captain Gil. (Id.; ECF No. 16). 11 After service was issued, Defendants filed an answer on August 6, 2025, indicating that 12 two Defendants--Debbie and Medina--are actually one Defendant--Devon Medina. (ECF No. 13 34). Accordingly, on October 3, 2025, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate 14 Defendants Debbie and Medina from the docket and add Devon Medina to the docket. (ECF 15 No. 42). 16 On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice and Motion to Correct Error and Omission 17 of Dr. Deborah Massetti and Inclusion of Devon Medina. (ECF No. 46). Plaintiff states that 18 "the naming of 'Debbie' is in fact Dr. Deborah Massetti, Chief Operational Doctor, Madera 19 County Jail. Dr. Massetti was consulted ... upon my return to the Madera County Jail from 20 Community Medical Center but failed to examine me or see me for two months after my 21 injury." (Id. at 1). Plaintiff asked the Court to add Dr. Deborah Massetti as a defendant in place 22 of "Debbie." (Id.) 23 On October 22, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to add Dr. Deborah Massetti, 24 finding that “Plaintiff's description of Dr. Deborah Massetti's role in the incident is not the 25 same as Plaintiff's description of ‘Debbie’ in Plaintiff's first amended complaint.” (ECF No. 26 47). The Court also stated that “[i]f Plaintiff wishes to add Dr. Deborah Massetti to the 27 complaint, he should file a motion for leave to amend his complaint and attach a complaint that 28 is complete in itself, without reference to any earlier complaints.” (Id.) 1 II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 On November 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 3 Complaint to Add Dr. Deborah Massetti (ECF No. 52) and lodged his proposed second 4 amended complaint (ECF No. 53). 5 Plaintiff states that he would like to amend his first amended complaint so his “Second 6 Amended Complaint reflects Dr. Massetti’s participation and culpability in the action originally 7 filed.” (ECF No. 52). 8 The lodged second amended complaint alleges that after he “slipped and fell exiting an 9 inmate shower…Plaintiff received a cursory examination by Doctor Deborah Massetti…[and] 10 Dr. Massetti cleared Plaintiff for reentry on February 9, 2024.” (ECF No. 53 at 5-6). It then 11 alleges that “Plaintiff thereafter re-injured himself in a fall on February 10, 2024 [and] 12 [m]edical personnel Granados contacted Dr. Massetti and explained the situation and was told 13 by Dr. Massetti she would visit Plaintiff personally.” (Id. at 6). He then states that “Dr. Massetti 14 failed to contact Plaintiff for over 2 ½ months[;] [n]or did she correct the taking of the lidocaine 15 patch or the lack of ambulatory device [and] Plaintiff never heard from Dr. Massetti thereafter.” 16 (Id.). 17 In addition to adding allegations about Dr. Massetti, Plaintiff’s proposed second 18 amended complaint also includes allegations related to the slip and fall that were previously 19 dismissed. (Id. at 5-8) (“On February 8, 2024, I slipped and fell exiting an inmate shower at the 20 Madera County Jail . . . there were no rubber anti-slip mats, warnings signs or assistance.”). 21 III. LEGAL STANDARDS 22 Under Rule 15(a), a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 23 twenty-one days of service, or if the pleading is one to which a response is required, twenty-one 24 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “In all 25 other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or 26 the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 27 Granting or denying leave to amend is in the discretion of the Court. Swanson v. United 28 States Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). “In exercising this discretion, a court 1 must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather 2 than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 3 1981). “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to 4 amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the amendment, and 5 whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 6 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Eminence Cap., LLC v. 7 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Prejudice is the ‘touchstone of the inquiry 8 under rule 15(a).’”) (citation omitted). 9 “Although leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires,’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 10 15(a), it ‘is not to be granted automatically.’” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 11 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). “Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed 12 amendment is futile or would be subject to dismissal.” Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 13 1046, 1059 (9th Cir. 2018). 14 IV. ANALYSIS 15 After examining the factors relevant to whether to grant leave to amend including bad 16 faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the amendment, and whether the 17 plaintiff has previously amended the complaint, the Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s 18 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 19 As an initial matter, although the court does not find bad faith in Plaintiff’s request to 20 add Dr. Massetti,1 the Court does find bad faith to the extent the second amended complaint 21 includes allegations related to the prison’s failure to prevent Plaintiff’s fall, which have already 22 been dismissed. (ECF No. 53 at p. 5) (“No measures have been taken to protect inmates 23 irrespective of numerous accidents of this kind.”); (ECF No. 21, at p. 2) (“The magistrate judge 24 correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s current slip and fall allegations fail to state a claim. . . .”). 25 26 27 1 The Court notes that, at times, Plaintiff seems to indicate that the original defendant named as “Debbie” is Dr. Massetti, but in his second amended complaint, he states that Dr. Massetti is “Chief 28 Operational Officer at Madera County Jail” or the “assumed supervising doctor,” while he refers to “nurse Debbie” who provided or failed to provide other medical treatment. (ECF No. 53 at 6). 1 Further, the Court finds undue delay. Plaintiff has been aware of the facts regarding Dr. 2 Massetti since the filing of the initial complaint on May 3, 2024, yet did not include these 3 specific allegations against her in Plaintiff’s first two complaints. 4 The Court also finds that amendment at this late stage in the litigation would be 5 prejudicial to Defendants. This case has been pending since May 3, 2024. After the screening 6 process, service, and discovery, the case is now in dispositive motion practice. If another 7 defendant were added at that time, it would delay resolution of the pending case. Dr. Massetti 8 would need to be located and served and permitted to participate in discovery. This would 9 substantially delay the claims already pending against current Defendants. 10 Moreover, the Court finds that further amendment is likely to be futile. The allegations 11 against Dr. Massetti consist of the following: Upon return to the Madera County Jail Plaintiff received a cursory examination 12 by Doctor Deborah Massetti assumed to be the supervising doctor. Dr. Massetti 13 cleared Plaintiff for reentry on February 9, 2024. . . . Plaintiff thereafter re- injured himself in a fall on February 10, 2024. Medical personnel Granados 14 contacted Dr. Massetti and explained the situation and was told by Dr. Massetti she would visit Plaintiff personally. Dr. Massetti failed to contact Plaintiff for 15 over 2 ½ months. Nor did she correct the taking of the lidocaine patch or the 16 lack of ambulatory device. Plaintiff never heard from Dr. Massetti thereafter. 17 (ECF No. 53, at p. 6). To state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a 18 pretrial detainee must show the following: (i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions 19 under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take 20 reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable 21 official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and 22 (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries. 23 “With respect to the third element, the defendant’s conduct must be objectively unreasonable, a test that will necessarily ‘turn[ ] on the facts and circumstances 24 of each particular case.’” [Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016)] (quoting [Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397 (2015)]; 25 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)). The “‘mere lack of due care by a 26 state official’ does not deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. (quoting [Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 27 330–31 (1986)). Thus, the plaintiff must “prove more than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin to reckless disregard.” Id. 28 1 Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (parallel citations and footnote 2 omitted). Plaintiff’s allegations, even if true, fail to show that Dr. Massetti acted with deliberate 3 indifference under these standards. Plaintiff does not allege a substantial risk of harm or that a 4 reasonable official in the circumstances would have appreciated that Plaintiff was facing a high 5 degree of risk without seeing Dr. Massetti. Plaintiff does not allege that Dr. Massetti knew that 6 a hospital doctor had prescribed lidocaine patches or a wheelchair or that she knew these 7 treatments were being withheld by any Defendant. While Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Massetti is 8 “assumed to be the supervising doctor,” even if true, this would not establish liability. 9 Supervisory personnel are not liable under section 1983 for the actions of their employees 10 under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a 11 supervisory position, the causal link between the supervisory defendant and the claimed 12 constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676–77; Fayle v. 13 Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 14 1978). 15 Finally, in considering whether to grant leave to amend, the Court notes that Plaintiff 16 has had a previous opportunity to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 8). 17 Thus, after consideration of the relevant factors, the Court recommends denying 18 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 19 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 20 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 52) be 22 DENIED. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 26 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 27 Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 28 fifteen pages, including exhibits. Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 1 || fourteen days after service of the objections. 2 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 3 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 4 || 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _-March 17, 2026 [Je hey — 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28