Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01687/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01687-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Pedro Membrillo-Cid, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1687-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a county jail inmate, Defendant moved to dismiss

for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #7). Plaintiff responded and Defendant replied (Doc. ##9, 14).

The Court will deny Defendant’s motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff sued Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and alleged that his constitutional rights were

violated by inadequate food, overcrowding, and unsanitary conditions at the jail (Doc. #1).

In his verified Complaint, Plaintiff indicated that these three claims were non-grievable

issues (Id. at 4-6). The Court ordered an answer, and Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. ##3, 7).

In his motion, Defendant contended that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

(Doc. #7). In support, Defendant submitted the affidavit of Zelean Tademy, a Hearing

Officer for inmate discipline and grievances (Ex. 1, Doc. #7). Tademy attested that,

according to the sheriff’s office records, Plaintiff did not file any grievances or External

Case 2:06-cv-01687-MHM-JRI Document 19 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Appeals during his confinement at the jail (Tademy Aff. ¶¶ 4-5). Defendant also attached a

copy of the Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy DJ-3 (Attach. A, Doc. #7).

The Court issued an order informing Plaintiff of his obligation to respond and the

evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s contentions (Doc. #8). In response,

Plaintiff submitted an affidavit (Doc. #9). Plaintiff attested that he made several requests for

grievance forms but was repeatedly told that the issues he sought to grieve were not grievable

(Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 2, 4). Plaintiff specifically alleged that he “constantly approach[ed]” Officer

Rodriguez, badge #A9108, for grievances; however, Rodriguez told him that the Sergeant

said the issues were non-grievable (Id. ¶ 4). Plaintiff further attested that two other officers,

identified by badge #’s B0111 and B0273, also refused to give him grievance forms for the

reason that the issues were non-grievable (Id. ¶¶ 4-5 (¶ 5, at 3, is unmarked)). Attached to

his affidavit were copies of three Inmate Request Forms in which he requested grievance

forms (Attachs., Doc. #9). The first form is dated June 27, 2006, and is signed by Officer

Rodriguez (Id.). The second form is dated June 28 and signed by badge #B0111. And the

third form is dated July 17, 2006 and signed by badge #B0273 (Id.). 

After the Court granted additional time to reply, Defendant filed a reply arguing that

Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied access to the grievance process is not credible (Doc.

#14). Defendant submitted the affidavit of Susan Fisher, another Hearing Officer for inmate

discipline and grievances (Ex. 1, Doc. #14). Fisher attested that on June 28, 2006 - the date

of Plaintiff’s second Inmate Request Form for a grievance – 8 grievances were filed at the

Lower Buckeye Jail (Fisher Aff. ¶ 4). She further attested that on July 17, 2006, 6 grievances

were filed at the same facility (Id. ¶ 5). 

Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s Order granting Defendant additional time to

reply and argued that Defendant failed to timely reply (Doc. #15). Plaintiff requested a

“Demand for Judgment” and sanctions against Defendant. Plaintiff also filed a sur-response

to Defendant’s reply and reasserted that he attempted – both verbally and in writing – to file

grievances, but the officers’ denials prohibited Plaintiff from grieving his claims within 48

hours as required under the Rules and Regulations for Inmates (Doc. #16).

Case 2:06-cv-01687-MHM-JRI Document 19 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

II. Legal Standard

Plaintiff must first exhaust “available” administrative remedies before bringing this

action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.

2006); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). He must complete the

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable rules. See Woodford v.

Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). Exhaustion is required for all suits about prison life,

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002), regardless of the type of relief offered through

the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). 

 Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 919-921 (2007). 

Defendant bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Because exhaustion is a matter of abatement

in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, a court may look beyond the pleadings to decide

disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. Further, a court has broad discretion as to the method

to be used in resolving the factual dispute. Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s &

Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). 

III. Analysis

As stated, Defendant bears the burden of proving lack of exhaustion, and therefore

must demonstrate that there were remedies available to Plaintiff. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at

1119; Brown, 422 F.3d at 936-37. “If prison employees refuse to provide inmates with those

[grievance] forms when requested, it is difficult to understand how the inmate has any

available remedies.” Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); accord

Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th

Cir. 2001). The information provided by the jail to the prisoner is pertinent because “it

informs our determination of whether relief was, as a practical matter, ‘available.’” Brown,

422 F.3d at 937. Although Defendant demonstrated that a grievance system exists at the jail,

he failed to proffer any evidence refuting Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied grievance

forms for his three counts. 

Case 2:06-cv-01687-MHM-JRI Document 19 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to attempt to exhaust his administrative

remedies prior to filing this action because his requests for a grievance form came on the

same day, and then weeks after, he filed his Complaint (Doc. #14 at 3). However, Plaintiff’s

evidence demonstrates that one written request for a form was submitted prior to the filing

date (Attach. 1, Doc. # 39). Another written request for a form is dated the same day as his

Complaint; thus, it cannot be determined whether his request for a form came before or after

he “filed” his Complaint (Id., Attach. 2). Regardless, Policy DJ-3 does not require inmates

to submit Inmate Request Forms to obtain grievance forms; such forms are to be provided

to inmates upon request (Attach. A at 2, Doc. #7). Defendant did not address Plaintiff’s

sworn statement that Officer Rodriguez repeatedly denied him grievance forms. Notably,

there are no affidavits from the identified officers to rebut Plaintiff’s allegations that they

informed him the issues were not grievable. Defendant’s evidence showing that other

grievances were filed on the days that Plaintiff requested forms in writing is insufficient to

support his motion. There is no description of what these grievances concerned; therefore,

they may well have been other issues that were considered “grievable.” Without more,

Defendant has failed to rebut Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied grievance forms, and the

policy does not inform an inmate what to do if denied forms. 

In sum, Defendant’s evidence is insufficient to refute Plaintiff’s sworn statements that

he was prevented access to the administrative grievance process. Because Defendant has

failed to carry his burden, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s “Response to Order” that granted Defendant’s request for additional time

to reply is construed as a motion for reconsideration (Doc. #15). In light of the Court’s

decision to deny the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s response is moot. His request for

damages and sanctions, and demand for judgment will be denied.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01687-MHM-JRI Document 19 Filed 02/28/07 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #7) is denied without prejudice. 

(2) Plaintiff’s Response to Order (Doc. #15), construed as a motion for

reconsideration, is denied.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01687-MHM-JRI Document 19 Filed 02/28/07 Page 5 of 5