Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00924/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00924-3/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Viet Kieu Hung, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0924-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendant moved to dismiss

(Doc. #6) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff responded (Doc. #8) and Defendant replied (Doc.

#10). After careful review of these pleadings and the record, the Court will grant

Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Defendant Joseph Arpaio

violated his constitutional rights by (1) an inadequate and tainted diet, (2) overcrowding, and

(3) unsanitary conditions (Doc. #1). Defendant Arpaio was ordered to answer the Complaint,

and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (Docs. ##3, 6). Defendant argued that Plaintiff

failed to file any grievances or external appeals prior to filing the instant action (Doc. #6).

Attached to the motion were (1) the Maricopa County Inmate Grievance Procedures, and

(2) an affidavit of Sergeant Zelean Tademy, Hearing Office for inmate discipline and

grievances (Id., Exs. 1-2).

Plaintiff responded that he submitted a grievance to a detention officer on January 25,

2006, and was transferred to the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC)

Case 2:06-cv-00924-SMM-LOA Document 12 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

a week later, before he could exhaust his remedies (Doc. #8). Attached to his response was

an inmate grievance form dated January 25, 2006 regarding diet (Id., ex. 1). Defendant

replied that Plaintiff was not transferred to ADOC until February 21, 2006, three and a half

weeks after he filed his grievance (Doc. #10). Thus, Plaintiff could have pursued his

grievance to the shift supervisor, and failed to do so (Id.). Attached to the reply was

Tademy’s affidavit (Id., Ex. 1).

II. Legal Standard

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner may

not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless all

available administrative remedies are exhausted. See Roles v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016, 1017

(9th Cir. 2006). Exhaustion is mandated “regardless of the relief offered through

administrative procedures.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). It is required in

all inmate suits regarding prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002). To be

“properly exhausted,” the prisoner “must complete the administrative review process in

accordance with the applicable rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit

in federal court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 

 Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court considers exhaustion as a matter

of abatement in an unenumerated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) motion and “may

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. The 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). The proper

remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

III. Analysis

An inmate should seek to resolve a conflict through the Maricopa County Jail

System’s Inmate Grievance Procedures. An inmate who wishes to file a grievance will be

provided a Grievance Form upon request, and must submit the form to a detention officer.

Case 2:06-cv-00924-SMM-LOA Document 12 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

If the detention officer is unable to resolve the grievance within four calendar days, he will

inform the inmate that the form will be forwarded to a shift supervisor. If the inmate does

not get a response from the detention officer within four days of submitting it, he may submit

a form directly to the shift supervisor. If the shift supervisor is unable to resolve the

grievance, the inmate will sign the form, and it will be forwarded to the hearing officer. If

the inmate has not received a written response to his grievance within four days of having

submitted it to the shift supervisor, he may submit a form directly to the hearing officer. If

the Hearing Officer is unable to resolve the grievance, the inmate may appeal his decision

to the jail commander, whose decision may be appealed to an External Referee. The External

Referee’s decision is final (Doc. #6, ex. 1).

Tademy attested that (1) the grievance policies do not limit what a Plaintiff may

grieve; (2) Plaintiff filed no grievances or external appeals prior to filing the instant action;

and (3) Plaintiff was transferred to ADOC custody on February 21, 2006 (Docs. #6, ex. 2 at

¶¶4-5; #10, ex. 1 at ¶¶3,6). Plaintiff, however, introduced a grievance he filed on January

25, 2006, complaining about his diet (Doc. #8, ex. 1). Plaintiff received a response from the

detention officer later that same day (Id.). There is no indication as to whether the grievance

had been resolved or forwarded to the shift supervisor (Id.).

Defendant demonstrated the existence of a grievance procedure, to which Plaintiff

failed to fully avail himself. Plaintiff submitted a single grievance on January 25, 2006,

complaining about diet (Doc. #8, Ex. 1). Plaintiff received a response on the same day, but

failed to pursue his grievance to the shift commander, although he had almost a month to do

so. (Doc. #10, Ex. 1 at ¶¶5-7). Based on the record, although the grievance procedures do

not provide for the ability to pursue a grievance once an inmate is no longer in Maricopa

County custody, Plaintiff was in custody long enough to submit his grievance to the shift

commander and to the Hearing Officer. (Id.) Further, Plaintiff’s own evidence demonstrates

that he was aware of the procedures (Doc. #8), and his allegation in his Complaint that his

claims were non-grievable does not support a conclusion that Plaintiff was “reliably

Case 2:06-cv-00924-SMM-LOA Document 12 Filed 10/20/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

informed” that there were no available remedies. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35

(9th Cir. 2005). Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6) is granted.

Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. The Clerk of Court

shall enter a judgment of dismissal accordingly.

DATED this 19th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00924-SMM-LOA Document 12 Filed 10/20/06 Page 4 of 4