Beitman v. Correct Care Solutions ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lee Michael Beitman, No. CV-17-03829-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 11 v. 12 Correct Clear Solutions, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Lee Michael Beitman filed suit against Defendants Corizon Health Inc., 16 Martin Gruenberg, Charles L. Ryan, Correct Care Solutions, and David Shinn alleging 17 claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requesting damages and injunctive relief. (Doc. 7). 18 Beginning March 15, 2021, the Court conducted a three-day jury trial. At the jury trial, 19 Plaintiff and Defendants offered evidence pertaining to both Plaintiff’s damages claims 20 and request for injunctive relief. At the close of trial, the jury found against Plaintiff and 21 for Defendants on all claims, and the Court determined judgment should be entered for 22 Defendant Shinn on the injunctive relief claim at issue. (Doc. 301). Pursuant to Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions 24 of law regarding Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. 25 I. FINDINGS OF FACT 26 Plaintiff was admitted as an inmate at the Arizona Department of Corrections 27 (“ADC”) in 2014. (Doc. 310). In 2015, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with other 28 inmates in which he suffered injuries. (Id.). Defendant Ryan was the Director of the ADC 1 at the time of the 2015 altercation. (Id.). Plaintiff filed the instant claim for injunctive relief 2 against Defendant Ryan in his official capacity alleging that Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment 3 rights are being violated by Defendant Shinn’s deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious 4 medical need. (Id.). Defendant Shinn became the Director of the ADC in 2019. (Id.). On 5 March 18, 2020, Defendant Shinn was substituted as the defendant for Plaintiff’s official 6 capacity claim for injunctive relief. (Doc. 162). 7 At trial, Plaintiff presented no evidence to differentiate the medical care he is 8 currently receiving from the ADC under Defendant Shinn from the medical care he 9 received from the ADC under Defendant Ryan. (See Docs. 310, 311, 312, 313, 314). 10 Further, Plaintiff presented no medical evidence or expert testimony that the injunction he 11 seeks, to consult with a maxillofacial specialist, is medically necessary or appropriate. (See 12 id.). Additionally, Plaintiff presented no medical or expert testimony that the treatment he 13 received for his injuries was inadequate. (See id.). At the close of evidence, the Court 14 determined that Defendant Ryan was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 15 50, and the jury found against Plaintiff on all claims. (Doc. 314). This Court accepts the 16 jury’s finding that Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need 17 of Plaintiff. 18 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 19 For an incarcerated plaintiff to prove a claim for improper medical treatment under 20 the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must prove that prison officials acted with deliberate 21 indifference to the plaintiff’s serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 22 106 (1976). The jury found, and the Court accepts, that no Defendant acted with deliberate 23 indifference to a serious medical need of Plaintiff. (See Doc. 314). Because no Defendant 24 acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need of Plaintiff, the Court 25 determined judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant Shinn under Rule 52. (Doc. 26 314). Further, because Plaintiff presented no medical evidence or expert testimony to 27 support the injunction he seeks, Plaintiff has failed to show that his requested relief should 28 be granted. I. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED amending the minute entry for March 17, 2021 (Doc. 301) at 4:43 p.m. to read: 5 “4:43 p.m. Court reconvenes. Ms. Barnes moves that the Court, in light of the jury 6 || verdict in favor of the Defendants, include Defendant Shinn in the judgment entered. Upon 7\| Plaintiff raising no objection, it is so ORDERED.” 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment for || Defendants Corizon Health Incorporated, Martin Gruenberg, and Correct Care Solutions 10 || based on the jury verdicts (Doc. 303); for Charles L. Ryan based on the Court’s order (Doc. 11 || 301); for David Shinn based on these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and for 12 || Bennie Rollins based on the Court’s order (Doc. 57). 13 Dated this 19th day of March, 2021. 14 15 A 16 17 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-