1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lee Michael Beitman,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Correct Clear Solutions, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-03829-PHX-JAT

FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

Plaintiff Lee Michael Beitman filed suit against Defendants Corizon Health Inc., 

Martin Gruenberg, Charles L. Ryan, Correct Care Solutions, and David Shinn alleging 

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requesting damages and injunctive relief. (Doc. 7). 

Beginning March 15, 2021, the Court conducted a three-day jury trial. At the jury trial, 

Plaintiff and Defendants offered evidence pertaining to both Plaintiff’s damages claims 

and request for injunctive relief. At the close of trial, the jury found against Plaintiff and 

for Defendants on all claims, and the Court determined judgment should be entered for 

Defendant Shinn on the injunctive relief claim at issue. (Doc. 301). Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions 

of law regarding Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. 

I. FINDINGS OF FACT 

Plaintiff was admitted as an inmate at the Arizona Department of Corrections 

(“ADC”) in 2014. (Doc. 310). In 2015, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with other 

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 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

at the time of the 2015 altercation. (Id.). Plaintiff filed the instant claim for injunctive relief 

against Defendant Ryan in his official capacity alleging that Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment 

rights are being violated by Defendant Shinn’s deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious 

medical need. (Id.). Defendant Shinn became the Director of the ADC in 2019. (Id.). On 

March 18, 2020, Defendant Shinn was substituted as the defendant for Plaintiff’s official 

capacity claim for injunctive relief. (Doc. 162). 

At trial, Plaintiff presented no evidence to differentiate the medical care he is 

currently receiving from the ADC under Defendant Shinn from the medical care he 

received from the ADC under Defendant Ryan. (See Docs. 310, 311, 312, 313, 314).

Further, Plaintiff presented no medical evidence or expert testimony that the injunction he 

seeks, to consult with a maxillofacial specialist, is medically necessary or appropriate. (See 

id.). Additionally, Plaintiff presented no medical or expert testimony that the treatment he 

received for his injuries was inadequate. (See id.). At the close of evidence, the Court 

determined that Defendant Ryan was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 

50, and the jury found against Plaintiff on all claims. (Doc. 314). This Court accepts the 

jury’s finding that Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need 

of Plaintiff. 

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

For an incarcerated plaintiff to prove a claim for improper medical treatment under 

the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must prove that prison officials acted with deliberate 

indifference to the plaintiff’s serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 

106 (1976). The jury found, and the Court accepts, that no Defendant acted with deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need of Plaintiff. (See Doc. 314). Because no Defendant 

acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need of Plaintiff, the Court 

determined judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant Shinn under Rule 52. (Doc. 

314). Further, because Plaintiff presented no medical evidence or expert testimony to 

support the injunction he seeks, Plaintiff has failed to show that his requested relief should 

be granted.

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, 

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

4:43 p.m. to read:

“4:43 p.m. Court reconvenes. Ms. Barnes moves that the Court, in light of the jury 

verdict in favor of the Defendants, include Defendant Shinn in the judgment entered. Upon 

Plaintiff raising no objection, it is so ORDERED.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 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). 

Dated this 19th day of March, 2021.

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