Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03711/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03711-1/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

JDDL

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charlie Lee Evans,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

McWilliams, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3711-PHX-SMM (MHB)

ORDER

AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In this civil rights action brought by an Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)

inmate, Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. # 25). Plaintiff responded

and Defendants replied (Doc. ## 27, 28). The Court will grant Defendants’ motion and order

Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant York should not be dismissed for failure to serve.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants Holly, Lt. York, Lt.

Davis, and Lt. Scott alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights for allegedly being

placed in an unsanitary cell and deprived of any means to clean his hands or cell (Doc. # 16).

Plaintiff further claimed that he was denied hot meals for eight days, was not permitted to

drink anything except water from a malfunctioning sink, was only permitted one shower in

eight days, and was not permitted to leave his cell for recreation (Doc. # 16). Defendants

were ordered to answer the Second Amended Complaint and they subsequently filed a

Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

Case 2:05-cv-03711-SMM-MHB Document 31 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 Defendant York has not yet been served in this action. 

JDDL - 2 -

(Doc. ## 17, 25).1 In support of their motion, Defendants submitted an affidavit of ADC

Hearing Officer Aurora Aguilar and a copy of the ADC grievance procedures (Doc. # 25,

Exs. 1-2). 

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 bears 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 this action alleging that he suffered inhumane conditions of

confinement in the ADC between January 13 and 21, 2004 (Doc. # 16). In his Second

Amended Complaint, Plaintiff acknowledged that a grievance system existed at ADC, but

claimed that he feared for his life and did not believe his issues were grievable under ADC

policy (Doc. # 16 at 4, 5). 

In support of their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants submitted the affidavit of Hearing

Officer Aurora Aguilar (Aguilar Aff., Ex. 1, Doc. # 25). Aguilar attested that she searched

Case 2:05-cv-03711-SMM-MHB Document 31 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 5
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

JDDL - 3 -

Plaintiff’s file for grievances related to the conditions of his confinement while incarcerated

from January 13-21, 2004 but that none had been filed (Doc. # 25, Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 4-5). 

Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ motion (Doc. # 27). Plaintiff claimed that he has

been classified as severely mentally ill and that illness constitutes an extenuating

circumstance that should excuse Plaintiff’s failure to utilize the grievance process. Further,

Plaintiff argued that he did not know he could utilize the grievance procedure to address his

claims until after the time for doing so had long expired. As a result, Plaintiff argued that he

could not then go back and attempt to grieve his claims, as the grievances would not be

processed. 

Defendants replied that Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to support his claim

that he has been classified as severely mentally ill, and that even if Plaintiff does suffer from

a mental disorder, he is still required to exhaust available administrative remedies before

filing suit. Further, Defendants claimed that the attachments to Plaintiff’s response are

unrelated to his instant claims and are unauthenticated. 

Plaintiff acknowledges that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the claims

in his Second Amended Complaint. Rather, Plaintiff avers that his mental illness should

excuse the grievance requirement and that, even if the grievance requirement is not excused,

he did not believe his claims were grievable issues. Plaintiff’s claims fail, however, for

several reasons.

First, there is no extenuating circumstance exception to the grievance process. Even

if there was, Defendants correctly note that Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of his

alleged mental disease. Moreover, Plaintiff’s claims of ignorance regarding the grievance

process are unavailing. Plaintiff’s actions concerns his confinement between January 13 and

21, 2004 (Doc. # 16). Plaintiff claims that he was unfamiliar with the grievance process and

therefore it was not “available” to him. But the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s Response to

the Motion to Dismiss include copies of inmate letters filed by Plaintiff before the events

giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. The first step in the ADC inmate grievance process requires

that an inmate issue a complaint to their assigned Corrections Officer (CO) III. Here,

Case 2:05-cv-03711-SMM-MHB Document 31 Filed 08/21/07 Page 3 of 5
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 The Exhibits to Plaintiff’s Response are unrelated to the issues in his Second

Amended Complaint.

JDDL - 4 -

Plaintiff’s evidence includes a letter to CO III Eccles and Eccles’ response.2 As a result,

Plaintiff’s argument that he did not know how to utilize the grievance process fails.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s generalized assertions about the unavailability of the grievance process

are insufficient. Plaintiff has not specifically named any officer who allegedly told Plaintiff

his claims were not grievable. 

In short, Plaintiff has simply not demonstrated that the ADC grievance process was

unavailable to him for the issues in his Second Amended Complaint. Defendants’ motion

will, therefore, be granted.

IV. Unserved Defendant

The Court, in its December 20, 2006 Order, ordered service on York (Doc. # 17 at 1).

The Court also informed Plaintiff that his failure to effect service on any Defendant within

120 days of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint may result in the dismissal of each

Defendant not served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2(b)(2)(B)(1). York has not been served; his summons was

returned unexecuted for lack of a valid address. Plaintiff has not made an attempt to reserve

York despite sufficient opportunity to do so. The Court will, therefore, order Plaintiff to

show cause within 20 days why York should not be dismissed for failure to serve pursuant

to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

To comply, Plaintiff must file a Response to this Order within 20 days, explaining

why York should not be dismissed. If Plaintiff fails to do so, York will be dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 17) is granted. Defendants Davis, Scott,

and Holly are dismissed without prejudice. 

(2) The remaining Defendant in this action is Defendant York.

(3) Within 20 days of the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff must show cause why

York should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve.

Case 2:05-cv-03711-SMM-MHB Document 31 Filed 08/21/07 Page 4 of 5
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

JDDL - 5 -

(4) If Plaintiff fails to file a response as described in this Order within 20 days, the

Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action

without prejudice as to the remaining Defendant.

DATED this 21st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-03711-SMM-MHB Document 31 Filed 08/21/07 Page 5 of 5