Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01777/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01777-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arthur L. Vitasek, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1777-PHX-RCB (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Arthur L. Vitasek brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against three Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office employees: Sheriff Joseph Arpaio; Detention

Officer R. Gilbert; and Transportation Officer Deana Lopez (Doc. 12). Before the Court are

Gilbert and Lopez’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Orders

(Doc. 27).

The Court will deny both motions.

I. Background

 Plaintiff’s claims arose during his confinement at the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona (Doc. 12 at 1). In Count I of his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that

Arpaio sets the policies applicable in the jails and is responsible for training officers (id. at

3). Plaintiff claimed that the violations alleged in Counts II and III arose due to the policies

adopted by Arpaio and his failure to adequately train Gilbert and Lopez (id.).

In Count II, Plaintiff averred that on June 8, 2010, Gilbert opened and read Plaintiff’s

legal mail and then refused to give the legal mail to Plaintiff (id. at 4). Plaintiff further

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 11
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 -

averred that Gilbert threatened to read all of Plaintiff’s mail in the future. Plaintiff claimed

that as a result, he was unable to communicate privately with his witnesses for months until

the trial court judge issued an order regarding Plaintiff’s mail (id.).

In Count III, Plaintiff alleged that on the morning of March 18, 2010, while he was

speaking to a detention officer about transport to court for his hearing later that day, Lopez

approached, told Plaintiff to shut up, searched Plaintiff, and asked the detention officer for

handcuffs (id. at 5). Plaintiff stated that he informed Lopez he could not carry his box of

legal materials while handcuffed, but Lopez responded that this was Plaintiff’s problem (id.).

Plaintiff alleged that Lopez refused Plaintiff’s request for a sergeant and, later, did not return

to transport Plaintiff to his hearing. According to Plaintiff, Lopez claimed that Plaintiff

refused transport; however, after Plaintiff filed a grievance and a motion with the trial court,

Lopez then claimed that Plaintiff had been disruptive. Plaintiff stated that the trial court

judge issued an order requiring Plaintiff to be transported in the future (id.).

The Court screened the amended pleading and found that Plaintiff set forth a claim

against Arpaio in Count I based upon municipal policy and failure to train, and that Plaintiff

stated a First Amendment claim against Gilbert in Count II and an access-to-the-courts claim

against Lopez in Count III (Doc. 13).

On December 29, 2010, Arpaio filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21). Plaintiff

submitted a response and a supplemental response to Arpaio’s motion (Docs. 24-25). Arpaio

then withdrew his motion (Doc. 28). Meanwhile, on January 7, 2011, Gilbert and Lopez

filed their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23). With his response to Gilbert and Lopez’ motion,

Plaintiff submitted his Motion for Court Orders (Doc. 27).

II. Gilbert and Lopez’ Motion

A. Defendants’ Contentions

Defendants move for dismissal of Counts II and III on the ground that Plaintiff failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (Doc. 23). In support, they submit the affidavit of Selethia

L. Down, a MCSO sergeant assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit (id., Ex. 2, Down Aff. ¶ 1).

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 11
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 -

Down attests that the inmate grievance procedure at the jail is a three-tiered system that

includes (1) the initial grievance and decision by the Bureau Hearing Officer; (2) the

Institutional appeal; and (3) the External appeal (id. ¶ 4). Down attests that all inmates are

notified of the grievance procedures upon their receipt of the MCSO Rules and Regulations

at booking (id.). According to Down, a search of the inmate grievance records maintained

by MCSO reflects that plaintiff filed numerous grievances on various issues while housed

at the jail facilities (id. ¶¶ 6-7). Attached to the affidavit is a computer generated list of

approximately 40 grievances Plaintiff filed during his confinement (id., Ex. D). This list

includes the date of each grievance, the grievance number, and a brief description of the

complaint, and some entries include a comment describing MCSO’s response (id.). Down

states that none of Plaintiff’s grievances pertain to allegations raised in this lawsuit;

specifically, there are no grievances about Gilbert opening and reading Plaintiff’s mail and

no grievances about Lopez denying Plaintiff transport to court (id. ¶ 8). 

Defendants rely on this evidence to argue that Plaintiff did not exhaust remedies for

his claims in Counts II and III; therefore, the claims raised in those counts should be

dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 23 at 4). 

B. Plaintiff’s Response

As stated, Plaintiff had filed a response and supplemental response to Arpaio’s Motion

to Dismiss, which was subsequently withdrawn (see Docs. 21, 24-25, 28). Arpaio’s motion

had also raised a nonexhaustion argument (Doc. 21 at 5). In his response to Gilbert and

Lopez’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff incorporates his response and supplemental response to

Arpaio’s motion (Doc. 26 at 1). 

In his first response Plaintiff avers that previously, on January 14, 2010, his legal mail

was seized before he could read it (Doc. 25 at 2). He states that he filed a grievance, which

is attached to his response (id., Attach. A). In response to his grievance, Lieutenant

Velazquez discussed the issue with Plaintiff and made an agreement that detention officers

would not read Plaintiff’s legal mail and Plaintiff would not submit a motion on the issue to

the trial court (id.). Plaintiff explains that pursuant to this agreement, he signed off on the

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 3 of 11
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 -

grievance as resolved (id.). In his response to Gilbert and Lopez’ motion, Plaintiff notes that

this particular grievance is listed on page four of Defendants’ Exhibit D, the computer

generated list of Plaintiff’s grievances (Doc. 26 at 2, ref. Doc. 23, Ex. D at 4 (describing Jan.

15, 2010 grievance regarding legal mail and discussion with Lt. Velazquez)). Plaintiff

contends that once his grievance was resolved, the issue was exhausted (Doc. 26 at 2).

Plaintiff adds that MCSO has a strict policy against submitting duplicate grievances;

therefore, he could not submit another grievance on the same issue (Doc. 25 at 3). Plaintiff

argues that with the agreement and resolution of the January 2010 grievance and the

prohibition of duplicate grievances, when Defendants subsequently broke that agreement, he

had no other remedy available and had exhausted (id.). 

Plaintiff avers that because a new grievance would have been dismissed as a duplicate,

he filed an inmate request form to Sergeant Williams (id.). In this request, Plaintiff cited the

rules governing detention officers and the handling of inmate legal mail and the discussion

he had with Lt. Velazquez (id.). Plaintiff proffers a copy of this inmate request form, which

is dated June 8, 2010 (id., Ex. B). Plaintiff states that there was no response to this request

form (id.). Thus, Plaintiff maintains that he had no other remedy so he filed a “Motion for

Court Order and Motion for Sanctions” in the state trial court (id., Ex. C). Plaintiff submits

a copy of the Minute Entry dated August 2, 2010, which addresses his motion and, according

to Plaintiff, provided the relief he sought regarding his legal mail (id., Ex. D). Plaintiff

concludes that he exhausted remedies for his legal mail claim and MCSO employees

breached the agreement concerning the mail (id. at 4).

With his supplemental response, Plaintiff submits a copies of his inmate grievance,

Institutional appeal, and External appeal, and all responses thereto, pertaining to his claim

against Lopez (Doc. 24, Attach. A). Plaintiff asserts that the transportation issue was not

only grieved through every level, it was addressed by Sgt. Downs, who signed the External

appeal before returning it to Plaintiff (Doc. 26 at 2, ref. to Doc. 24, Attach. A (External

appeal resp. at 5)).

Plaintiff submits that the MCSO uses its grievance process as a “revolving conveyor

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 4 of 11
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 -

belt that is never resolved,” so that lawsuits cannot be filed (Doc. 24 at 6). He alleges that

in this system, an inmate grieves an issue, gets a favorable resolution by superiors, but that

resolution is then denied or ignored by detention officers (id.). The inmate is told to file a

grievance, and the process repeats as long as the grievance is not rejected as a duplicate (id.).

Plaintiff states that this circular processing has no end and provides no final resolution (id.).

C. Gilbert and Lopez’ Reply

In light of Plaintiff’s evidence of exhaustion as to the claim against Lopez, Defendants

withdraw their Motion to Dismiss as to Count III (Doc. 31 at 2).

As to the legal-mail claim against Gilbert, Defendants argue that in both his First

Amended Complaint and his Response to Gilbert and Lopez’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff

concedes that he filed no grievance against Gilbert (id. at 1-2). They submit that because

there is no evidence that Plaintiff filed a grievance against Gilbert for opening legal mail,

Count II must be dismissed (id. at 2). 

D. Plaintiff’s Amended Response

Plaintiff filed his first response to Gilbert and Lopez’ Motion to Dismiss before the

Court issued the Notice required under Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 14 (9th Cir.

2003), which informs pro se prisoner litigants of the obligation to respond to motion seeking

dismissal for failure to exhaust. Therefore, the Court issued the requisite Notice on January

19, 2011, after Gilbert and Lopez’ Reply, and provided Plaintiff the opportunity to file an

amended response (Doc. 33).

In his Amended Response, Plaintiff restates that he filed a grievance in January 2010

about officers reading his legal mail, he reached agreement with Lt. Velazquez and resolved

the grievance, and then in June 2010 Gilbert violated that agreement and read Plaintiff’s mail

(Doc. 37 at 1-2). Plaintiff argues that the MCSO grievance policy requires inmates to file

grievances to attempt to resolve issues and that he grieved the issue of officers reading his

legal mail (id. at 2-3). He maintains that the language in the policy does not require him to

grieve each individual detention officer who violates the previous agreement made pursuant

to his initial grievance resolution (id. at 3). Plaintiff submits that the issue was properly

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 5 of 11
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

- 6 -

grieved and resolved, thereby ending the grievance process (id. at 3-4). He notes that nothing

in the MCSO grievance policy explains what an inmate must do if MCSO does not adhere

to the proposed resolution (id. at 4-5).

E. Gilbert and Lopez’ Amended Reply

Gilbert and Lopez repeat that there is no evidence that Plaintiff filed a grievance

against Gilbert (Doc. 38 at 2). Defendants contend that Plaintiff is wrong to conclude that

the filing of an inmate request form to Sgt. Williams excused or waived his obligation to

exhaustion administrative remedies (id.). They state that the inmate request form is not a

grievance and does not supersede the exhaustion requirement (id. at 3). They also state that

the case law is clear that exhaustion is mandatory (id. at 2). Defendants refer to the MCSO

grievance policy, which provides that grievance forms must be submitted within 48 hours of

the event being grieved (id. at 3, citing Doc. 23, Ex. 1). Defendants argue that because

Plaintiff failed to comply with the PLRA and the MCSO grievance policy, this claim must

be dismissed (Doc. 38 at 3).

IV. Exhaustion

A. Legal Standard

Under the PLRA, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before

bringing a federal action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119

(9th Cir. 2009). 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). A prisoner must complete the

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

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212 (2007). Thus,

the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1119. 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

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 6 of 11
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

- 7 -

dispute. Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th

Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). If a court finds that the plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Wyatt, 315 F.3d

at 1120. Dismissal of the entire complaint is not required if a plaintiff exhausts some, but not

all, claims included in the complaint. See Jones, 549 U.S. at 222-24.

B. Analysis

The request for dismissal only applies to Plaintiff’s claim in Count II. The specific

exhaustion question raised is whether Plaintiff’s January 15, 2010 grievance, which

concerned officers opening and reading his legal mail, served to exhaust Plaintiff’s claim

against Gilbert that arose in June 2010. Plaintiff submits a copy of the January 2010

grievance (Doc. 25, Attach. A), and Defendants describe this grievance in their grievance list

attached to Down’s affidavit (Doc. 23, Ex. 2, Down Aff. ¶ 7, Ex. D at 4). This evidence

reflects that in his January 2010 grievance, Plaintiff complained about his legal mail being

opened and seized, that Lt. Velazquez met with Plaintiff and “discussed legal issues and

[Plaintiff’s] mail,” and that Plaintiff’s grievance was resolved (id.). With this resolution,

Plaintiff exhausted his January 2010 grievance about detention officers’ handling of his legal

mail. See Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[a]n inmate has no

obligation to appeal from a grant of relief, or a partial grant that satisfies him, in order to

exhaust his administrative remedies”).

 Because the burden is on Defendants to demonstrate nonexhaustion, Gilbert must

show that when the legal mail issue arose again in June 2010, relief remained available to

Plaintiff through the grievance system. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936-37 (9th Cir.

2005). The information concerning MCSO’s grievance policy “is pertinent because it

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

937. Plaintiff asserts that there is no provision within MCSO policy that informed him how

to proceed after his grievance was resolved but the issue recurred with Gilbert’s actions.

Gilbert does not respond to this assertion or point to any provision within the policy that

instructed Plaintiff what he could have done. Nor does Gilbert respond to Plaintiff’s

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 7 of 11
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

- 8 -

contention that he was required only to grieve the issue about which he complained, rather

that grieve each individual officer upon his or her involvement with that issue. Instead,

Gilbert merely repeats that Plaintiff failed to file a grievance against Gilbert within 48 hours

of the incident being grieved (Doc. 38 at 2-3).

Plaintiff is correct that he does not have to name individual defendants in an inmate

grievance; he is only required to put jail officials on notice of a problem. Griffin, 557 F.3d

at 1120. His January 2010 grievance clearly put jail officials on notice of the problem with

detention officers opening and reading his legal mail (Doc. 25, Attach. A). And, again, the

evidence shows that MCSO addressed the problem and Plaintiff obtained the relief he

desired. Gilbert’s claim that Plaintiff should have re-grieved the legal mail issue in June

2010 when Gilbert opened Plaintiff’s legal mail is contradicted by Ninth Circuit case law.

In Harvey, the Court rejected prison officials’ arguments that when an inmate is granted

relief in the administrative process but it is not actually provided, the inmate must pursue

additional administrative remedies. Harvey, 605 F.3d at 685 (citing Abney v. McGinnis, 380

F.3d 663, 669 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[a] prisoner who has not received promised relief is not

required to file a new grievance where doing so may result in a never-ending cycle of

exhaustion”)). Indeed, Plaintiff specifically contends that Defendants’ position—that

Plaintiff had to grieve Gilbert individually—denotes a system with a “kind of circular

processing” where an inmate files a grievance and it is resolved favorably, and then the

resolution is ignored and the inmate is told to file another grievance (Doc. 24 at 6). See

Woodford, 548 U.S. at 102-03 (emphasizing that in holding that proper exhaustion is

required, the Court was not addressing those situations where an inmate contends that

officials devised procedural requirements for the purpose of tripping up inmates as they try

to navigate the grievance system). Defendants, again, fail to respond to Plaintiff’s

contention. 

In sum, given the evidence of Plaintiff’s January 2010 exhausted grievance on the

relevant issue and the applicable case law, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 8 of 11
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

1

Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Orders is part of Plaintiff’s first response to Gilbert and

Lopez’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26 at 3-4). For clarity, the Court has docketed the response

filing separately as a Motion at Document 27.

- 9 -

establish nonexhaustion of the claim in Count II against Gilbert. The Motion to Dismiss will

therefore be denied.

III. Motion for Court Orders

A. Parties’ Contentions

1. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff moves for the Court to (1) direct MCSO to preserve evidence related to his

claims, (2) order MCSO to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for destroying

evidence (of Plaintiff’s exhausted grievance), (3) prohibit MCSO from submitting computer

generated evidence given its unreliability, (4) order MCSO to investigate and report why

evidence was deleted from their computer system, (5) issue a search warrant to have MCSO’s

computer searched by an expert, (6) prohibit MCSO detention officers from searching

Plaintiff’s property without his presence, and (7) sanction MCSO for destruction of evidence

(Doc. 27 at 3-41

).

2. Defendants’ Response

Arpaio asserts that there is no systemic problem affecting the institutional grievance

monitoring system and the documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s grievance on the transportation

issue were simply not included with the copies of Plaintiff’s grievances that were first

provided to defense counsel (Doc. 30 at 1-2). For these reasons, Arpaio requests that the

Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (id. at 2).

Gilbert and Lopez respond that the information regarding this one grievance was

overlooked at the time that the list of grievance materials was provided to defense counsel

(Doc. 32 at 1-2). They submit that the system, being maintained by humans, is not infallible

and there is no reason to order sanctions or the other relief Plaintiff requested in his motion

(id. at 2). Gilbert and Lopez also assert that they are not personally responsible for

maintaining the grievance records so there is no basis for sanctioning them (id.). Finally,

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 9 of 11
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

- 10 -

they argue that Plaintiff has not made the necessary factual or legal showings to obtain the

requested relief (id.).

3. Plaintiff’s Reply

In reply, Plaintiff points out that while Lopez claims no responsibility or liability for

the MCSO computer records that omitted reference to the exhausted grievance about

transport, she came to Plaintiff and discussed the grievance and then signed the grievance

herself (Doc. 36 at 1-2). Plaintiff states that is not rational for the defense to blame the error

on MCSO’s computer when Lopez had personal knowledge of the grievance (id. at 2).

Plaintiff suggests that this situation is an example of the systemic problems at MCSO, with

the primarily problem being responsibility—the sheriff claims he is not responsible for his

employees or for his computer system, the employees are not responsible for jail procedures,

and now defense counsel is not responsible for submitting unreliable evidence (id. at 2-3).

Plaintiff requests that, in light of Defendants’ tampering with evidence, his motion for relief

and sanctions be granted (id. at 3).

B. Analysis

Plaintiff’s motion makes requests for injunctive relief and raises discovery issues. To

warrant injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that

he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance

of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural

Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los

Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff does not address these four factors,

and he presents no specific facts or evidence to demonstrate that Defendants or other jail

officials have performed or will perform unlawful searches of his property. Nor does

Plaintiff demonstrate that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of conduct he

speculates Defendants may attempt during litigation.

As to discovery matters, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outline the parties’

obligations in discovery and provide Plaintiff with the tools to seek specific evidence or

information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-34. The Rules also allow for Plaintiff to move for

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 10 of 11
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

- 11 -

an order compelling disclosure and for appropriate sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

Defendants are already subject to a duty to make proper representations to the Court, Fed.

R. Civ. P. 11(b), and to preserve evidence. See State of Idaho Potato Comm’n v. G & T

Terminal Packaging, Inc., 425 F.3d 708, 720 (9th Cir. 2005) (a party to litigation bears a

general obligation to preserve evidence). 

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Gilbert and Lopez’

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Orders (Doc. 27).

(2) Gilbert and Lopez’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) is denied.

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Orders (Doc. 27) is denied.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01777-RCB Document 45 Filed 04/04/11 Page 11 of 11