Lee Beitman v. Corizon Health, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 21-16000
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEE MICHAEL BEITMAN, No. 21-16000

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-03829-JAT

v. MEMORANDUM* CORIZON HEALTH, INC., Contracted Health Care Provider at ADOC; MARTIN GRUENBERG; CHARLES L. RYAN; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC; DAVID SHINN, Director, BENNIE ROLLINS,

Defendants-Appellees,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2026**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Lee Michael Beitman appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment following a three-day jury trial in his action under 42 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs following an assault

by other inmates. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s rulings

on motions in limine, Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253, 1259

(9th Cir. 2021), and its decisions regarding a party’s presence at trial, United States

v. Lumitap, 111 F.3d 81, 83 (9th Cir. 1997). Where a party did not object to the

district court’s evidentiary rulings, we review for plain error. United States v.

Saini, 23 F.4th 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2022). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying without prejudice to

appropriate objections at trial Beitman’s motion in limine to exclude evidence

related to his prior convictions and the length and term of his incarceration. See

Fed. R. Evid. 609; United States v. Osazuwa, 564 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2009)

(explaining that although “the scope of inquiry into prior convictions is limited”

because of the risk of unfair prejudice and confusion, generally “the prior

conviction, its general nature, and punishment of felony range are fair game for

testing the defendant’s credibility” (citation and alteration omitted)).

Beitman did not object at trial to testimony about the fact of his convicted felon

status and the length of his incarceration, and he has not shown that admission of

the evidence for purposes of impeachment constitutes plain error. See Fed. R. Evid.

609; Osazuwa, 564 F.3d at 1175. The record does not support Beitman’s

2 contention that the jury heard evidence concerning the specific charges for which

he was convicted.

Beitman has not shown an abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to

deny his request to appear in person at his civil trial during the COVID-19

pandemic while granting his alternative request to appear via videoconferencing.

See Price v. Kramer, 200 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2000) (describing the broad

discretion afforded the district court in supervising trials). Even if he could

otherwise show a due process violation, moreover, Beitman’s alternative request to

appear via videoconferencing negates the presence of state compulsion necessary

to establish such a violation. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512-13 (1976)

(explaining that a due process violation exists only if the state compels the

challenged restriction, and thus that a defendant’s failure to object “is sufficient to

negate the presence of compulsion necessary to establish a constitutional

violation”).

The record does not support Beitman’s contentions of judicial bias. See Liteky

v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never

constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).

We decline to address claims and arguments omitted from the opening brief.

See Orr v. Plumb, 884 F.3d 923, 932 (9th Cir. 2018).

3 Because this appeal is administratively closed as to appellee Corizon Health,

Inc., see Docket Entry No. 68, we issue no decision with respect to Corizon Health,

Inc.

Beitman’s motion to consolidate appeals, Docket Entry No. 48, is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.