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 JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT 

OF ARIZONA

Lee Michael Beitman,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Correct Care Solutions, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 17-08229-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff Lee Michael Beitman, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex (ASPC)-Florence, South Unit, brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 asserting Eighth Amendment medical care claims against multiple 

Defendants. (Doc. 35.) On September 16, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting in 

part and denying in part three summary judgment motions and dismissing six Defendants. 

(Doc. 198.) Following that Order, the remaining Defendants are Nurse Practitioners

(NPs) Stephanie Herrick and Betty Hahn. (Id.) A settlement conference is set for 

January 11, 2022, and trial is set for April 18, 2022. (Docs. 201, 209.) Before the Court 

is Beitman’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, which NP Hahn opposes. (Docs. 208, 211.) 

The Court will deny Beitman’s Motion.

I. Background

In Count One of his Third Amended Complaint, Beitman alleged that in February 

Case 3:17-cv-08229-JAT Document 215 Filed 01/04/22 Page 1 of 5
- 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

2016, while he was housed at the GEO private prison in Kingman Arizona, he was 

assaulted by another prisoner and punched in the side of the face, which caused him to 

suffer a displaced jaw, a pushed-in cheek bone, and severe pain. (Doc. 35 at 4.) Beitman 

alleged that NP Herrick failed to provide adequate treatment for his injuries and was

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. (Id. at 7–8.) 

In Count Two, Beitman alleged that for years he was denied proper medication 

and proper medication dosages to treat his low testosterone levels despite lab tests and 

prior medical records confirming his low testosterone levels. (Doc. 35 at 9–11.) Beitman

alleged that NP Hahn failed to properly treat his hormone condition, and, consequently, 

Beitman suffered secondary problems including pain, cramping, and spine deterioration. 

(Id. at 10–11.) 

In his Motion for Injunctive Relief, Beitman states that, currently, his testosterone 

and DHEA hormone levels are normal, and his testicular atrophy has ceased. (Doc. 208 

at 2.) Beitman now seeks HCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) hormone treatment to 

repair the testicular atrophy suffered during the time he was denied proper treatment. 

(Id.) According to Beitman, when he suffered testicular atrophy 34 years ago, HCG was 

successful in repairing the damage. (Id. at 2–3.) Beitman alleges that he made his 

request for HCG to NP Weigel, but she was told by the Medical Director that HCG 

would not help Beitman, and the Medical Director also refused Humatropin and 

Sermorelin treatment for Beitman’s muscles. (Id. at 3.) Beitman requests an injunction 

to receive the HCG treatment and treatment for muscle mass loss from his private 

physician, Dr. Paul Stallone. (Id. at 4; Doc. 213 at 4.) 

NP Hahn filed an opposition to Beitman’s Motion. (Doc. 211.) NP Hahn asserts 

that that she no longer treats Beitman, the only remaining claim is a damages claim 

against her, no ripe injunctive relief request remains in the lawsuit, and Beitman failed to 

demonstrate the required Winter factors. (Id.) 

II. Preliminary Injunctive Standard

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that (1) he is likely to 

Case 3:17-cv-08229-JAT Document 215 Filed 01/04/22 Page 2 of 5
- 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

succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, 

(3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. 

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “But if a plaintiff can 

only show that there are ‘serious questions going to the merits’—a lesser showing than 

likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the 

‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,’ and the other two Winter

factors are satisfied.” Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th 

Cir. 2011)). Under this “serious questions” version of the sliding-scale test, the elements 

of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element 

may offset a weaker showing of another. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 

1135. Regardless of which standard applies, the movant “has the burden of proof on each 

element of the test.” See Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 

1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). 

Where a plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction, rather than a prohibitory 

injunction, injunctive relief is “subject to a higher standard” and is “permissible when 

‘extreme or very serious damage will result’ that is not ‘capable of compensation in 

damages,’ and the merits of the case are not ‘doubtful.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 

F.3d 976, 999 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 

GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009)). Further, under the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act, injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means 

necessary to correct the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State 

of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000).

III. Discussion

In its Summary Judgment Order, the Court found that Beitman demonstrated that

his low testosterone condition constituted a serious medical need and that there was a

question of fact as to whether NP Hahn was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 

need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 198 at 26, 38.). See Jett v. Penner, 

Case 3:17-cv-08229-JAT Document 215 Filed 01/04/22 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

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

439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (to support a medical care claim under the Eighth 

Amendment, a prisoner must demonstrate “deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs”) (citation omitted). Therefore, for the purposes of the pending Motion, the Court 

will assume that Beitman has, at the least, demonstrated serious questions going to the 

merits of his claim in Count Two, thereby satisfying the first Winter factor.

The second Winter factor requires Beitman to demonstrate that, absent an 

injunction, he will be exposed to irreparable harm. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. 

Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988); see Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. “[T]here must 

be a presently existing threat of harm, although injury need not be certain to occur.” 

Villaneuva v. Sisto, CIV S-06-2706 LKK EFB P, 2008 WL 4467512, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 

Oct. 3, 2008) (citing FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279–80 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

Speculative injury is not irreparable injury sufficient for a preliminary injunction.

Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674. To support a mandatory preliminary injunction for 

specific medical treatment, a plaintiff must demonstrate ongoing harm or the present 

threat of irreparable injury, not a past injury. See Conn. v. Mass., 282 U.S. 660, 674 

(1931) (an injunction is only appropriate “to prevent existing or presently threatened 

injuries”); Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674. 

Delays in necessary treatment and pain can constitute irreparable harm. See 

Rodde v. Bonta, 357 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2004) (irreparable harm includes delayed 

and/or complete lack of necessary treatment, and increased pain). In addition to physical 

harm, serious psychological harm may constitute irreparable injury. See, e.g., Thomas v. 

Cnty. of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d 504, 512 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[p]laintiffs have also 

established irreparable harm, based on this Court’s finding that the deputies’ actions have 

resulted in irreparable physical and emotional injuries to plaintiffs and the violation of 

plaintiffs’ civil rights”); Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Ct. Cent. Dist. of California, 840 F.2d 701, 

709 (9th Cir. 1988) (the plaintiff’s “emotional stress, depression and reduced sense of 

well-being” constituted irreparable harm).

Beitman argues that treatment with Humatropin and Sermorelin is needed to 

Case 3:17-cv-08229-JAT Document 215 Filed 01/04/22 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

reverse damage from muscle mass loss. (Doc. 213 at 4.) He further argues that he 

“believes that there is a great possibility of becoming sterile from not reversing the 

testicular atrophy and that being refused treatment would cause irreparable harm and 

permanent damage[.]” (Id.) 

Beitman’s desire to rebuild lost muscle mass does not satisfy the irreparable harm 

element. He refers only to a past injury and fails to identify any present or existing injury 

connected to lost muscle mass. Beitman’s belief that there is a “great possibility” of 

becoming sterile absent HCG hormone treatment also fails to satisfy the irreparable harm 

element. Beitman alleges only speculative injury based on his belief, not medical 

evidence. He presents no allegations of current symptoms or pain that constitute 

irreparable harm necessary for an injunction. Because Beitman fails to meet his burden 

on the second Winter factor, his Motion for Injunctive Relief will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 208) is 

denied.

Dated this 4th day of January, 2022.

Case 3:17-cv-08229-JAT Document 215 Filed 01/04/22 Page 5 of 5