Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00856/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00856-1/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

1

Plaintiff filed his response several days after the motion was filed. Thereafter, the

Court sent Plaintiff a Notice pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 14 (9th

Cir. 2003), advising him of his obligation to respond and giving him additional time to

respond. (Doc. #11.) Plaintiff filed no additional response.

SVK

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cedric Jordan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0856-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Cedric Jordan, who is confined at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson,

filed this civil rights action against various officials of the Maricopa County Jail. Defendants

move to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies before

filing this lawsuit.1

 (Doc. #8.) The motion is ready for ruling. (Doc. ##10, 15.) The Court

will grant the motion and terminate the case.

I. Background

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated because

Defendants refused to provide him with needed psychiatric medication. The Court ordered

Case 2:08-cv-00856-DGC Document 24 Filed 02/18/09 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 -

Defendants LaPoint and Maddineni to answer Count I and dismissed the remaining count and

Defendant. (Doc. #4.)

II. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust

A. 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). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 919-21 (2007).

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, courts have 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) (citation omitted). 

B. Parties’ Contentions

Defendants assert that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies.

In support, Defendant submits the affidavit of Susan Fisher, a Sergeant assigned to the

Inmate Hearing Unit. (Id., Ex. 1 Fisher Aff. ¶ 1.) Fisher attests that her duties include

receipt, processing, tracking, and storage of inmate grievances. (Id. ¶ 2.) The grievance

procedure at the jail is a three-tiered system that includes: (1) the initial grievance and

decision by a Bureau Hearing Officer; (2) the Institutional appeal; and (3) the External

appeal. (Id. ¶ 5; Ex. A, Attach. 1, Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy DJ-3.) Fisher asserts

that the jail’s grievance policy does not restrict the type of issues that an inmate may grieve

and that inmates are informed of the grievance procedure when they receive the “MCSO

Case 2:08-cv-00856-DGC Document 24 Filed 02/18/09 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 -

Rules and Regulations for Inmates.” (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) She further attests that according to the

Sheriff’s Office records, Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding his psychiatric medication and

signed the External Grievance Appeal Form acknowledging its resolution on June 23, 2008.

(Id. ¶8.) Also attached to the motion are Inmate Grievance forms #08-05718 (id., Ex. B),

Response by the External Referee (id., Ex. C), and Plaintiff’s Inmate Grievance Forms (id.,

Ex. D.)

Plaintiff asserts that he did, in fact, exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. #10.)

He makes no argument, but he attaches numerous grievance documents. His Inmate

Institutional Grievance Appeal Form is dated May 13, 2008 ( id., Ex. A); his Inmate

External Grievance Appeal Form is dated May 16, 2008 (id.); and the acknowledgment of

receipt of the response from the external referee is dated June 23, 2008 (id.). 

 In their reply, Defendants argue that the record shows that Plaintiff did not file his 

Institutional Grievance until eight days after he filed this lawsuit and note that the External

Grievance appeal and response were filed even later. Thus, they argue that Plaintiff did not

properly exhaust his remedies because he did not exhaust them before bringing his case.

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002).

C. Analysis

The Court will grant the motion. Defendants have met their burden to show that there

is a grievance procedure available and that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his remedies.

The PLRA mandates that an inmate exhaust his remedies before filing a lawsuit; exhausting

remedies during the course of the lawsuit does not comply with the requirement. Id. at 1120-

21. The statute itself states that “[n]o action shall be brought . . . until [the prisoner’s]

administrative remedies . . . are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In addition, requiring

dismissal where the inmate fails to exhaust before filing provides a strong incentive that will

promote the Congressional objectives behind the exhaustion requirement—affording officials

time and opportunity to address complaints internally, filtering out frivolous claims, and

development of an administrative record. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1200-01; see also Holcomb

v. Fleeman, 2007 WL 3231588, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (inmate’s concession that he did not

Case 2:08-cv-00856-DGC Document 24 Filed 02/18/09 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 -

obtain a Director’s level decision until after the lawsuit was filed “is fatal to his action”)

(citing Woodford, 126 S. Ct. at 2383; McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201), adopting report

and recommendation, 2008 WL 162775.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is dated May 1, 2008 and was filed by the Clerk of Court on

May 5. (Doc. #1.) The record shows that Plaintiff had not completed the exhaustion process

at the time he filed his Complaint; he did not file his Grievance Appeal or External Appeals

until mid May. Because he failed to exhaust his remedies before filing his lawsuit, the Court

will grant the motion and dismiss the claim without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. #8) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Status (Doc. #21).

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #8) is granted, and the claims are 

dismissed without prejudice. 

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Status (Doc. #21) is granted insofar as this Order 

advises him of the status of his case.

(4) This case is dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court must enter 

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 17th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00856-DGC Document 24 Filed 02/18/09 Page 4 of 4