Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02281/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02281-1/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 JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Burt, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2281-PHX-MHM-JRI

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a former county jail inmate, Defendants moved

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. # 10). Plaintiff responded, and Defendant replied

(Doc. ## 13, 12). The Court will grant Defendants’ motion and terminate this action.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants Joseph Arpaio and

Captain Peterson alleging that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated by: (1)

overcrowded conditions at the Durango Jail; (2) exposure to lead paint, asbestos and other

hazardous conditions; and (3) exposure to other unsanitary conditions (Doc. # 1 at 4-6).

Defendants Arpaio and Peterson were ordered to answer the Complaint, and they

subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies (Doc. ## 7, 10). In support of their motion, Defendants submitted

(1) an affidavit of Sergeant Zelean Tademy and (2) the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s

Inmate Grievance Procedures (Doc. # 10, Ex. 1).

///

Case 2:05-cv-02281-MHM-JRI Document 15 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

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). 

Defendants bear 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. Wyatt, 315 F.3d 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

Plaintiff brought a Complaint claiming that the Durango Jail was severely

overcrowded and that Plaintiff was exposed to hazardous and unsanitary conditions (Doc.

# 1 at 4-6). In his Complaint, Plaintiff acknowledged that a grievance system existed at the

Jail but claimed that he was told his issues were not grievable (Id.). 

In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants submitted the affidavit of Sergeant

Zelean Tademy (Tademy Aff., Ex. 1, Doc. # 10). Tademy asserts that he has searched

Plaintiff’s file for records of his grievances and only one grievance was filed by Plaintiff, but

that it related to an issue with medical care (Id. at ¶ 13). Tademy asserts that Plaintiff did not

file any grievances related to overcrowded, hazardous, or unsanitary conditions (Id. at ¶ 14).

 Finally, Tademy attests that other inmates at the Durango Jail were able to file grievance

related to overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. 

Case 2:05-cv-02281-MHM-JRI Document 15 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Plaintiff responded that he asked M.C.S.O. staff for forms to grieve his claims and he

was denied, instead being told that his issues were not grievable (Doc. # 13 at 2-3, 5).

Plaintiff seems to argue there were no "available remedies" to him and therefore he was not

required to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff has not, however, specifically

named any of the officers who refused his request for grievance forms nor has he described

with any degree of specificity what transpired to prevent him from filing grievances.

Defendants replied that all issues may be grieved and that detention officers pass out

grievance forms to inmates who request them. Defendants further replied that other inmates

were able to grieve those same issues during the same time period of Plaintiff’s incarceration

(Doc. # 12 at 3). 

In light of Plaintiff’s generalized allegation that detention officers told him that his

issues were not grievable, Defendants’ evidence that the same issues were frequently grieved

during the time that Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Durango Jail, and the fact that Plaintiff

was able to utilize the grievance process for another issue, Defendants have demonstrated

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available remedies with respect to overcrowding, hazardous,

and unsanitary conditions.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 10) is granted, and

Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02281-MHM-JRI Document 15 Filed 05/04/07 Page 3 of 3