Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01473/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01473-3/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 JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oscar Herrejon,

aka Jose Guadalupe Perez Castorena, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1473-PHX-SMM-ECV

ORDER

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

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. # 6). Plaintiff responded, and Defendant replied

(Doc. ## 10, 11, 13). The Court will grant Defendant’s motion and terminate this action.

I. Background

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

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated by (1) insufficient and spoiled meals, (2)

overcrowding, and (3) unsanitary conditions at the Lower Buckeye Jail (Doc. # 1 at 4-6).

Defendant Arpaio was ordered to answer the Complaint and he subsequently filed a Motion

to Dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (Doc.

## 3, 6). In support of his motion, Defendant submitted (1) an affidavit of Sergeant Zelean

Tademy and (2) the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s Inmate Grievance Procedures (Doc.

# 6, Ex. 1).

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01473-SMM-ECV Document 15 Filed 05/01/07 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 Lower Buckeye Jail was severely

overcrowded and unsanitary and that Plaintiff received insufficient and spoiled meals (Doc.

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

Jail, but Plaintiff claimed that his issues were not grievable (Id.). 

In support of his motion to dismiss, Defendant submitted the affidavit of Sergeant

Zelean Tademy (Tademy Aff., Ex. 1, Doc. # 6). Tademy asserts that he has searched

Plaintiff’s file for records of grievances, but that Plaintiff did not file any grievances during

his incarceration in the Maricopa County Jail System (Id. at ¶ 12). 

Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s motion on October 24,2006 and December 11,

2006 (Doc. ## 10, 13). Plaintiff averred that he requested grievance forms, but that “as a

result of [his] request, [he] was rolled out of [his] living quarters and relocated” (Doc. # 10

at 1). Plaintiff seems to argue there were no “available remedies” to him and therefore he

Case 2:06-cv-01473-SMM-ECV Document 15 Filed 05/01/07 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

1

 Plaintiff also discusses the merits of his claim and attempts to introduce another claim

regarding an injury Plaintiff sustained to his knee when he was incarcerated in the Maricopa County

Jail System. A claim for any injury Plaintiff sustained, however, is not properly before this Court.

- 3 -

was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff’s argument fails, however,

for at least two reasons. First, Plaintiff has not specifically named any of the officers who

refused his request for grievance forms nor has he described with any degree of specificity

(such as dates, times, or other identifying circumstances) what transpired to prevent him from

filing grievances. Second, Plaintiff has made inconsistent statements regarding exhaustion.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff claimed that he was told his issues were not grievable. Now it

appears as though Plaintiff has abandoned that argument in favor of an argument related to

intimidation when Plaintiff attempted to file grievances. In either event, Plaintiff has not

adduced any evidence to support his contentions.1

 

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

grievance forms to inmates who request them (Doc. # 11 at 2). 

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

issues were not grievable and Defendant’s evidence that a grievance process existed at the

jail for any issue, Defendant has demonstrated that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available

remedies with respect to overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and insufficient and spoiled

meals.

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

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

DATED this 30th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01473-SMM-ECV Document 15 Filed 05/01/07 Page 3 of 3