Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00353/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00353-11/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

Daniel Lee Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0353-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Daniel Lee Baker brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against various officials from the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) and the

Management and Training Corporation (MTC) (Doc. #16). Defendants moved to dismiss

Counts I-IV for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or, in the alternative, for failure

to state a claim (Doc. #33). The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part (Doc.

#99). 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of that Order on account of an error

in his briefing that misquotes the date when he became aware of the prison’s grievance

system (Doc. #103). This date was the subject of one of the exhaustion defenses that

Plaintiff presented in his opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (id.). 

Upon review of the record, the Court finds that the misstated date does not affect the

conclusion of its Order. Thus, relief from the Order is not warranted, and Plaintiff’s Motion

for Review will be denied. 

Case 2:07-cv-00353-SMM Document 114 Filed 05/08/08 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 -

I. Background 

Plaintiff’s claims arose during his confinement in two different ADC facilities and the

MTC prison in Kingman, Arizona. Plaintiff entered the Arizona State Prison Complex

(ASPC)-Lewis Stiner Unit in March 2005. (Doc. #78 at 2 ¶ 2.) He transferred to the MTC

facility in May 2005 and was housed there until June 2006, at which time he moved to the

ASPC-Eyman Cook Unit. (Id.) In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff set forth 11 counts

against 37 defendants. (Doc. #16.) 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss that is subject to this review concerned only Counts

I-IV. (Doc. #33.) In Count I, Plaintiff alleged that his Eighth Amendment rights were

violated by overcrowded conditions of confinement, including overcrowding with dangerous

inmates, at both the ADC and MTC facilities. (Doc. #16 at 4.) In Counts II and III, Plaintiff

alleged claims of failure to protect at all facilities. (Id. at 5-6.) And in Count IV, Plaintiff

alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety when they failed to protect

him from an attack by other inmates on May 8, 2006, at the MTC facility. (Id. at 7.) 

In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants’ primary argument for dismissal was that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Doc. #33.) In his First Amended

Complaint and his response memorandum, Plaintiff set forth numerous defenses to

nonexhaustion, including a claim that the grievance system did not become “available” until

he received notice of it. (Doc. #78 at 11.) 

In addressing this defense, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s affidavit evidence and

opposition memorandum contained conflicting statements about when he received

Orientation and a copy of the Inmate Handbook, which explained the grievance system.

(Doc. #99 at 9-10.) In his affidavit, Plaintiff averred that he was transferred to MTC in May

2005 and then transferred to the ASPC-Eyman Cook Unit in June 2006. (Doc. #78, Ex. A,

Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 10-12.) In his opposition memorandum, he stated that did he did not receive

Orientation until his arrival at MTC in June 2006. (Doc. #78 at 6, 15.) The Court interpreted

Case 2:07-cv-00353-SMM Document 114 Filed 05/08/08 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 -

this as a typo, and concluded that Plaintiff’s claim was that he did not receive Orientation

until his arrival at the ASPC-Eyman Cook Unit in June 2006. (Doc. #99 at 10.) The Court

went on to find that the evidence demonstrated Plaintiff was aware of and used the grievance

system prior to 2006. (Id.) Therefore, his defense that the grievance procedures were

unavailable because he was unaware of them was rejected.

In its Order, the Court dismissed Count IV and those claims within Counts I-III that

arose during Plaintiff’s confinement at the ASPC-Lewis Stiner Unit and the MTC facility.

(Doc. #99 at 15.) The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss as to the Eighth Amendment

claims in Counts I-III arising from Plaintiff’s confinement in the ASPC-Eyman Cook Unit.

(Id.)

II. Motion for Review

Plaintiff bases his motion on Rule 60(b)(1), which provides in part: “[o]n motion and

just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment,

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect.” Generally, a “typo” is categorized as a “mistake” or “excusable neglect.”

See Int’l Allied Printing Trades Ass’n v. American Lithographers, Inc., 233 F.R.D. 554, 556

(N.D. Cal. 2006). 

In his motion, Plaintiff clarifies that he received Orientation in June 2005 while

housed at MTC. (Doc. #103 at 2.) Thus, the typo in Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum

was to the year, not the prison facility. This clarification does not affect the conclusion on

the Motion to Dismiss, however, because the Court determined from the evidence that

Plaintiff was aware of the grievance procedures prior to 2006. 

As to those claims arising before June 2005, which is primarily limited to Plaintiff’s

confinement at the ASPC-Lewis Stiner Unit (where he was housed from March to May

2005), Plaintiff provided no specific allegations that would warrant an exception to the

exhaustion requirement. He stated that upon his arrival at the Lewis Stiner Unit, he informed

Case 2:07-cv-00353-SMM Document 114 Filed 05/08/08 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 -

officials that he was supposed to be housed in a different facility due to his medical needs.

(Doc. #78 at 11.) He did not describe this communication with officials, nor did he indicate

who he spoke to or why he unable to question the decision not to move him. Yet, at the same

time, he apparently began making requests to the Cental Office for the return of legal

documents that were lost between his transfer from the jail to the Lewis Stiner Unit. (Id., Ex.

A, Pl. Aff. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff did not explain why he was able to pursue administrative relief

for the loss of his legal papers but not for his other claims. 

Moreover, there were no allegations showing that, despite his unfamiliarity with the

grievance system, he attempted to notify officials of his concerns about overcrowding or

failure to protect either verbally or through other means. Although the PLRA requires a

prisoner to properly exhaust his claims administratively, Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378,

2386 (2006), any evidence suggesting that Plaintiff tried to give officials informal notice

would support his defense that he was simply unaware of the formal grievances procedures.

See Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 878 (6th Cir. 1999) (finding that a prisoner’s informal

written letters substantially complied with exhaustion requirement because they put prison

officials on notice of his complaint).

The Court also notes that in his affidavit, Plaintiff implied that he was aware of the

grievance system while housed at the Lewis Stiner Unit but choose not to use it; “[I] had two

choices from March 2005 until present time: file administrative grievance and end up either

dead . . . or, plead my case to my government . . . .” (Doc. #78, Ex. A, Pl. Aff. ¶ 48.) And

in his Complaint, Plaintiff indicated that there were administrative remedies available but that

he was exempt from the exhaustion requirement for reasons applied generally to all three

facilities. (Doc. #16 at 4, 4E, 5-6.) Without more specific allegations going to the Lewis

Stiner Unit, Plaintiff failed to overcome Defendants’ evidence showing that there was a

grievance system available for his claims arising there.

//

Case 2:07-cv-00353-SMM Document 114 Filed 05/08/08 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 -

III. Conclusion

 A review of the record in light of clarification that Plaintiff became aware of the

grievance procedures in June 2005, rather than in June 2006, does not alter the Order on the

Motion to Dismiss. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s mistake was inadvertent and not

in bad faith. But the correction does not warrant relief from the dismissal of those claims in

Counts I-IV arising from Plaintiff’s confinement at the ASPC-Lewis Stiner Unit and the

MTC facility. His motion will therefore be denied, except to the extent that he asks the Court

to disregard the error as harmless. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Review (Doc. #103) is

denied.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00353-SMM Document 114 Filed 05/08/08 Page 5 of 5