Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02363/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02363-2/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 LMH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oscar Cordova, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2363-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

In this civil rights action, Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc.

#10). Plaintiff responded, Defendants replied, and Plaintiff filed a sur-response (Doc ##12-

14). The Court will deny the Defendants’ motion without prejudice.

I. The Exhaustion Requirement

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. Id. at 1119-20. Further, a court has broad discretion as to the

Case 2:05-cv-02363-MHM-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/20/06 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 -

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). 

II. Parties’ Contentions

Plaintiff’s Complaint claimed that the Durango Jail was unsafe, overcrowded and

lacked adequate food (Doc. #1 at 4-6). For each of his three claims, Plaintiff alleged that he

was told that his issue was not grievable (Id.). The Court ordered Defendants Maricopa

County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Durango Jail Commander Peterson to answer (Doc. #6).

 Defendants moved to dismiss, contending that the exhaustion requirement was not

satisfied because (1) the jail records showed that Plaintiff did not file any grievances, (2) the

process is available to all inmates for any condition at the jail, and (3) Plaintiff did not

identify the persons who told him that his issues were not grievable (Doc. #10 at 5). In

support, they submit the affidavit of Hearing Unit Sergeant Zelean Tademy (Tademy Aff.

¶¶ 4, 7-8, Attach. 1, Doc. #10). 

Plaintiff responded that Tademy’s affidavit was insupportable because she checked

the jail’s grievance logs with P074970 as Plaintiff’s booking number when it is P076970

(Doc. #12). Defendants replied, submitting a corrected affidavit from Sergeant Tademy that

the jail’s records still showed no grievances for Plaintiff (Tademy Aff., Ex. 1, Doc. #13). 

Plaintiff filed a sur-response indicating that Officers Ceballo and Hoak, and an officer

with a badge number of A9378, were the persons who told him that his issues were not

grievable (Doc. #14 at 1). Plaintiff further submits that he can hardly read and relies on

outside help (Id. at 1). He incorrectly states that Defendants claimed that he signed a copy

of the Inmate Rules and Regulations, thus indicating his acceptance of responsibility for their

content. Defendants did not make such a claim. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s assertion implies

that he was not familiar with the jail’s rules allowing him to grieve all issues (Id. at 2).

Defendants did not object to the filing of a sur-response nor did they file a sur-reply.

III. Analysis 

As stated, Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating what remedies are

“available.” See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119; Brown, 422 F.3d at 936-37. Relevant evidence

Case 2:05-cv-02363-MHM-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/20/06 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 -

on what remedies are “available” includes official directives that explain the process,

documentary or testimonial evidence from prison officials who review the process, as well

as information provided to the inmate. Brown, 422 F.3d at 937. It is true that when prison

employees refuse to provide forms when requested, the inmate does not have any “available”

remedy. See Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 656-57 (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). 

Defendants submitted evidence that the grievance process does not limit the types of

issues that an inmate may grieve. Plaintiff, however, has intimated that he was not familiar

with these rules due to literacy problems. Moreover, he consistently stood on the allegation

in his verified Complaint that he was told his issues could not be grieved, and he specifically

identified three officers who told him so. In light of this evidence, the Court is not persuaded

that Defendants have carried their burden of showing that a remedy was “available” to

Plaintiff. 

Notably, the record contains no testimony from any of the officers regarding the truth

of Plaintiff’s assertion that they told him that his issues were not grievable. There is also no

evidence regarding whether other inmates were able to grieve similar issues. See Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1120 n. 15 (remanding for further factual development of the record on exhaustion).

In light of the undeveloped record and Defendants’ failure to meet their burden, the Court

will deny Defendants’ motion without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #10) is denied without

prejudice.

 DATED this 19th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02363-MHM-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/20/06 Page 3 of 3