(PC) Antonio Gutierrez v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 10, 2025
• Docket: 1:20-cv-01130
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO GUTIERREZ, JR., No. 1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING (1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 13 v. NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT (REQUEST FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES), 14 SANDOVAL, ALTERNATIVE REQUESTS TO ALTER THE JUDGMENT, FOR NEW TRIAL, FOR 15 Defendant. RULE 60 RELIEF, AND COMPANION REQUEST FOR FINDING OF PREVAILING 16 PARTY STATUS; AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 17 ATTORNEY’S FEES AND RELATED RELIEF 18 (Docs. 236, 237) 19 20 This action proceeded to a four-day trial in November 2024 on plaintiff Antonio 21 Gutierrez’s claims against defendant Margarita Sandoval for deliberate indifference to Gutierrez’s 22 serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for medical malpractice. 23 Docs. 215, 218, 223, 227. 24 At trial, Gutierrez asserted that on August 17, 2019, while housed in a California 25 Correctional Institution, he went to the medical clinic and was seen by defendant Nurse Sandoval. 26 Gutierrez claimed that the symptoms he presented with required a full medical evaluation and 27 warranted referral to a doctor and that Sandoval failed to do either, thereby delaying his diagnosis 28 with Bell’s palsy, a condition that causes weakness or paralysis in the face. Two days later, on 1 August 19, 2019, a doctor diagnosed Gutierrez with Bell’s palsy. Gutierrez argued that Sandoval 2 was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and was medically negligent in her 3 treatment of him, and that due to her treatment of him he has lasting effects of Bell’s palsy. 4 Sandoval asserted that she performed an appropriate medical assessment of Gutierrez on 5 August 17, 2019, and that nothing in that assessment reasonably led her to believe that Gutierrez 6 required further evaluation, medical care, or referral at that time. Sandoval denied that she caused 7 any injury to Gutierrez or that he suffered any damages. 8 The jury returned a verdict for Sandoval on November 21, 2024. Docs. 227, 232. The 9 jury made the following findings on the verdict form on Gutierrez’s Eighth Amendment claim: 10 (i) Gutierrez had a serious medical need when he presented himself to Sandoval on August 17, 11 2019, (ii) Sandoval knew of and disregarded Gutierrez’s serious medical need by failing to take 12 reasonable measures to address it, and (iii) Sandoval’s conduct did not cause harm to Gutierrez. 13 On Gutierrez’s negligence claim, the jury made the following findings: (i) Sandoval was 14 negligent in her medical treatment of Gutierrez, and (ii) Sandoval’s negligence was not a 15 substantial factor in causing harm to Gutierrez. Doc. 232. As a result of those findings, the jury 16 did not reach any questions related to damages. Id. 17 Plaintiff now moves under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50, 59(a), 59(e), 60(a), and 18 60(b)(6) to modify the judgment and award plaintiff nominal damages. Doc. 236. Plaintiff also 19 moves for attorney’s fees if he prevails on his motion to modify the judgment. Doc. 237. This 20 matter is suitable for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). The Court has 21 considered the parties’ briefs and, for the reasons explained below, denies Gutierrez’s motions.

22 I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT (REQUEST FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES), ALTERNATIVE 23 REQUESTS TO ALTER THE JUDGMENT, FOR NEW TRIAL, FOR RULE 60 RELIEF, AND COMPANION REQUEST FOR FINDING OF PREVAILING 24 PARTY STATUS 25 Gutierrez’s motion, while titled as a range of arguments, essentially seeks to alter the 26 judgment by having the Court declare him the prevailing party. Doc. 236-1. Gutierrez argues 27 that, based on the jury’s findings on his Eighth Amendment claim, he is the prevailing party and 28 is entitled to nominal damages. Doc. 236-1. He also argues that the verdict form incorrectly 1 directed the jury not to answer further questions on the Eighth Amendment claim once the jury 2 found Sandoval did not cause him harm. Doc. 236-1 at 11. Gutierrez does not argue that the 3 jury’s finding that Sandoval’s actions did not cause Gutierrez harm was erroneous or not 4 supported by the evidence; he argues only that nominal damages should have been awarded based 5 on the jury’s other findings on his Eighth Amendment claim. 6 Gutierrez asserts that the verdict form incorrectly conflated harm with causation and 7 incorrectly directed the jury to not consider nominal damages based on the jury’s finding that 8 Sandoval did not cause him harm. Doc. 242 at 10-11. In its answers to the first two questions on 9 the verdict form, the jury found that Gutierrez had a serious medical need when he presented 10 himself to Sandoval on August 17, 2019, and that Sandoval knew of and disregarded Gutierrez’s 11 serious medical need by failing to take reasonable measures to address it. Doc. 232. The next 12 questions on the verdict form, questions three through five, with the jury’s response, are listed 13 below: 14 3. Did such conduct by the defendant cause harm to the plaintiff? 15 Yes ✓ No

16 If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to question 4. If you answered “No,” then proceed to question 6. 17 18 4. Did the plaintiff suffer damages due to the defendant’s conduct?

19 Yes No

20 If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to question 6. If you answered “No,” then proceed to question 5. 21

22 5. If you found that plaintiff is not entitled to damages, but that defendant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights, you must award 23 nominal damages not to exceed one dollar. 24 Nominal damages: $___________

25 Proceed to question 6. 26 Id. at 2. As the jury answered “No” to question three, it did not reach questions four or five.1 Id. 27

28 1 Question six and subsequent questions addressed the negligence claim and damages issues. 1 Gutierrez takes issue with the language of the verdict form, arguing that question 3 2 includes language about harm as well as causation and that the jury verdict form should have 3 directed the jury to question five (to award nominal damages) even if the jury found that 4 Sandoval did not cause harm to Gutierrez. Doc. 242 at 10-11; Doc. 236-1 at 9-10. 5 As a preliminary matter, Gutierrez did not object to the language in the verdict form 6 before it was submitted to the jury and thus waived his right to challenge the causation question. 7 Doc. 236-1 at 9-11; Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir. 8 2001) (party waives objections to verdict form “by failing to raise them until after the jury had 9 rendered its verdict and was discharged.”) Additionally, Gutierrez’s proposed verdict form also 10 included similar causation language to the language he now argues incorrectly conflated 11 causation and damages. Doc. 199 at 4 (Gutierrez’s proposed verdict form asked: “Did Sandoval’s 12 alleged actions, or failure to act, cause harm to Gutierrez?”). As such, Gutierrez is precluded 13 from challenging the causation question in the verdict form. 14 Even if Gutierrez were not precluded from challenging the verdict form, the causation 15 question was not erroneous and the verdict form properly directed the jury to consider nominal 16 damages only if it found that Sandoval caused Gutierrez harm. “In order to prevail on an Eighth 17 Amendment claim for inadequate medical care, a plaintiff must show ‘deliberate indifference’ to 18 his ‘serious medical needs.’” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal 19 citation omitted). This includes both (1) an objective standard (that the deprivation was serious 20 enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment), i.e., a serious medical need, and (2) a 21 subjective standard: deliberate indifference. Id. The “deliberate indifference” prong requires 22 “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and 23 (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Lemire v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 24 1062, 1081–82 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added). 25 Gutierrez argues that the Court should award nominal damages even though the jury 26 found that Sandoval did not cause him harm. In support of this argument, Gutierrez relies 27 primarily on two cases that did not involve Eighth Amendment claims. See Sabbe v. Washington 28 County, 84 F.4th 807, 829 (9th Cir. 2023) (acknowledging that plaintiff may raise claim for 1 nominal damages based on Fourth Amendment “warrantless entry itself,” but declining to 2 consider such claim because plaintiff failed to seek nominal damages in district court); Draper v. 3 Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 1986) (error for district court to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 4 claim on basis that no actual damage was suffered, because plaintiff could be entitled to nominal 5 damages on his claim for illegal extradition). These cases acknowledge that a plaintiff must 6 establish a constitutional violation for nominal damages to be awarded. And while in some cases 7 a § 1983 claim may be stated without necessarily requiring a showing that the defendant caused 8 harm to the plaintiff, such a showing was a required element to establish a constitutional violation 9 on Gutierrez’s Eighth Amendment claim. 10 On an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, 11 “[m]ere delay of [medical treatment], without more, is insufficient to state a claim against prison 12 officials for deliberate medical indifference; there is no claim for deliberate medical indifference 13 unless the denial was harmful.” Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404 14 (9th Cir. 1985). Although the jury found that Gutierrez presented a serious medical need and that 15 Sandoval knew of and disregarded the risk, for Gutierrez to prevail on his claim and establish a 16 constitutional violation the jury would have still needed to find that Sandoval’s conduct caused 17 Gutierrez harm. Simmons v. G. Arnett, 47 F.4th 927, 934 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Harmless delays in 18 treatment are not enough to sustain an Eighth Amendment claim”). Because the jury did not find 19 that Sandoval caused Gutierrez harm, there was no constitutional violation and therefore the jury 20 was properly directed not to address nominal damages. 21 A jury verdict can be overturned and a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law 22 granted under Rule 50 “only if, under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable 23 conclusion as to the verdict. In other words, the motion should be granted only if ‘there is no 24 legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.’” Winarto v. 25 Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.2001) (internal citation 26 omitted). To move for judgement as a matter of law after a verdict, the movant must have moved 27 for judgment as a matter of law pre-verdict, or the motion will be denied as untimely. Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 50(b). Gutierrez did not move for judgment as a matter of law prior to verdict and 1 therefore may not obtain the relief he seeks under Rule 50. Gutierrez also fails to establish any 2 basis for relief under Rule 50, as his sole argument is that he is the prevailing party and is entitled 3 to nominal damages, which is incorrect as addressed above. 4 Under Rule 59(a), a new trial may be granted in an action in which there has been a trial 5 by jury “for any of the reasons for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in actions at law 6 in federal court[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1). Historically recognized grounds for granting a new 7 trial include, but are not limited to, claims “that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, 8 that the damages are excessive, or that, for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party 9 moving.” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729–30 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation 10 marks and citation omitted). Other grounds include that “the verdict is contrary to the clear 11 weight of the evidence, is based upon false or perjurious evidence, or to prevent a miscarriage of 12 justice.” Id. Gutierrez’s request for a new trial appears to be based on the argument that he was 13 entitled to nominal damages as a matter of law, but as noted above, Gutierrez did not prevail on 14 his Eighth Amendment claim and is not entitled to nominal damages. 15 The Court has discretion to amend or alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 59(e), but such remedy is “extraordinary” and “should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. 17 Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation 18 omitted). “In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be 19 granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 20 judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously 21 unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the 22 amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. Gutierrez did not 23 prevail on his claims and does not establish any basis for extraordinary relief under Rule 59(e), 24 and the Court does not find that he is entitled to such relief. 25 Gutierrez also invokes the Court’s “plenary authority” to modify the judgment under 26 Rule 60 or other rules. However, the jury did not find that Sandoval’s conduct caused Gutierrez 27 harm and, therefore, the jury did not find a violation of the Eighth Amendment. As such, there is 28 1 | no error for the Court to correct under Rule 60(a). While Gutierrez also cites to Rule 60(b), 2 | Gutierrez does not meaningfully argue, nor does he establish, any basis for such relief. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the motion to modify judgment and award 4 | nominal damages (Doc. 236). 5 Il. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 6 Gutierrez’s motion for attorney’s fees is premised on his argument that he is the prevailing 7 | party in this case and is entitled to nominal damages. As addressed above, Gutierrez is not the 8 | prevailing party and is not entitled to nominal damages. He is therefore not entitled to attorney’s 9 | fees and his motion for attorney’s fees is denied. 10 | Il. CONCLUSION 11 Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED that: 12 1. Gutierrez’s motion to modify judgment and award nominal damages (Doc. 236) is 13 DENIED. 14 2. Gutierrez’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 237) is DENIED. 15 16 17 | TIS SO ORDERED. _ 18 Dated: _ January 10, 2025 4h 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28