Beitman v. Correct Clear Solutions et al

Filing 316

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - The Minute Entry (Doc. 301 ) is amended as discussed herein. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendants Corizon Health Incorporated, Martin Gruenberg, and Correct Care Solutions based on the jury verdicts (Doc. 303 ); for Charles L. Ryan based on the Court's Order (Doc. 301 ); for David Shinn based on these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and for Bennie Rollins based on the Court's Order (Doc. 57 ). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/19/21. (DXD)

Case 2:17-cv-03829-JAT Document 316 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 3

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

Case 2:17-cv-03829-JAT Document 316 Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 3

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.

-2-

Case 2:17-cv-03829-JAT Document 316 Filed 03/22/21 Page 3 of 3

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS ORDERED amending the minute entry for March 17, 2021 (Doc. 301) at

4

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

9

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
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-