Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08040/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08040-1/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 SKC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Chad Duane Daniel,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Chris McCarthy, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-08040-PCT-MTL (MTM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Chad Duane Daniel, who is currently confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Florence in Florence, Arizona, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants move for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff was informed of his rights and obligations to 

respond pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc)

(Doc. 32), and he failed to file a timely response. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s 

“Motion to Discuss Summary Judgment on Behalf of the Plaintiff in Conjunction with the 

Memorandum and Points that Follow (with good cause appearing)” (Doc. 59).

The Court will deny both Motions.

I. Background

On screening of Plaintiff’s one-count Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the 

Court determined that Plaintiff stated failure-to-protect claims against Defendants Apache 

County Jail Sergeant Chris McCarthy and Nurse Destiny based on their failures to place 

Case 3:19-cv-08040-MTL-MTM Document 60 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 10
- 2 -

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

Plaintiff on suicide watch or intervene in his injurious suicide attempt while he was in jail 

custody, and the Court directed Defendants to answer these claims. (Doc. 6.)

After filing their Motion for Summary Judgment based on failure to exhaust, 

Defendants filed a Motion to Stay (Doc. 26), seeking to stay this action while their Motion 

for Summary Judgment was pending. The Court granted the Motion to Stay to the extent 

that it limited discovery to evidence concerning exhaustion, pending resolution of 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Doc. 39.) In the same Order, the Court 

granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 38), in which Plaintiff sought an 

additional 45 days to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and it gave 

Plaintiff until November 14, 2019 to respond. (Doc. 39.) 

A month after the extended deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ pending

Motion for Summary Judgment passed without a response, Plaintiff filed a second Motion 

seeking additional time to respond (Doc. 49), and the Court denied the Motion on the 

grounds that Plaintiff had not shown good cause or excusable neglect for failing to seek an 

extension of the response deadline. (Doc. 53.) 

II. Legal Standards

A. Summary Judgment

A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). The 

movant bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its motion and identifying 

those portions of the record, together with affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate 

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

If the movant fails to carry its initial burden of production, the nonmovant need not 

produce anything. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099,

1102–03 (9th Cir. 2000). But if the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden then 

shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute and that the fact 

in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the 

Case 3:19-cv-08040-MTL-MTM Document 60 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 10
- 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

governing law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable 

jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 

242, 248, 250 (1986); see Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th 

Cir. 1995). The nonmovant need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its 

favor, First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288–89 (1968); however, 

it must “come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal 

citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

At summary judgment, the judge’s function is not to weigh the evidence and 

determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 

477 U.S. at 249. In its analysis, the court does not make credibility determinations; it must 

believe the nonmovant’s evidence and draw all inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. Id. at 

255; Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). The court need 

consider only the cited materials, but it may consider any other materials in the record. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Where the nonmovant is a pro se litigant, the court must consider 

as evidence in opposition to summary judgment all of the nonmovant’s contentions set 

forth in a verified complaint or motion. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004).

B. Exhaustion Legal Standard

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner must exhaust “available” 

administrative remedies before filing an action in federal court. 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). The 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 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). 

The defendant bears the initial burden to show that there was an available 

administrative remedy and that the prisoner did not exhaust it. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 

Case 3:19-cv-08040-MTL-MTM Document 60 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 10
- 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

1162, 1169, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014); see Brown, 422 F.3d at 936-37 (a defendant must 

demonstrate that applicable relief remained available in the grievance process). Once that 

showing is made, the burden shifts to the prisoner, who must either demonstrate that he, in 

fact, exhausted administrative remedies or “come forward with evidence showing that there 

is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available 

administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. The 

ultimate burden, however, rests with the defendant. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate 

if the undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner, shows a 

failure to exhaust. Id. at 1166, 1168; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

If the defendants move for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and the 

evidence shows that the plaintiff did, in fact, exhaust all available administrative remedies, 

it is appropriate for the court to grant summary judgment sua sponte for the nonmovant on 

the issue. See Albino, 747 F.3d at 1176 (pro se prisoner did not cross-move for summary 

judgment on issue of exhaustion, but because he would have succeeded had he made such 

a motion, sua sponte grant of summary judgment was appropriate).

III. Facts Relevant to Exhaustion

A. Apache County Jail Administrative Remedy Process

The Apache County Jail provides administrative remedies for detainees to attempt 

to resolve issues pertaining to their confinement, including issues involving the conduct of 

jail staff. (Doc. 25 (Def. Statement of Facts) ¶¶ 1−2.) The Jail’s administrative remedy 

process is set forth in its Inmate Handbook, which Plaintiff received as part of the jail intake 

process. (Id. ¶ 3.) The Inmate Handbook is also available in electronic format on the 

Grievance Tracker Kiosk, which detainees can use to submit grievances electronically. (Id.

¶ 5.) Jail staff are also able to respond to detainees’ grievances electronically through the 

Grievance Tracker. (Id. ¶ 4.)

The first step of the administrative remedy process is for the detainee to raise the 

issue verbally with a detention officer. (Id. ¶ 9.) If this does not resolve the issue, the 

detainee must submit a “Grievance First Step,” using the Grievance Tracker. (Id.) An 

Case 3:19-cv-08040-MTL-MTM Document 60 Filed 03/04/20 Page 4 of 10
- 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

officer then contacts the detainee to attempt to resolve the issue. (Id.) If this also fails to 

resolve the issue, the detainee may appeal to the Shift Supervisor/Corporal, and then to the 

Jail Sergeant. (Id.) 

If the Jail Sergeant is unable to resolve the issue to the detainee’s satisfaction, the 

Jail Sergeant will provide the detainee a Formal Grievance form, which must be completed 

in its entirety and turned over to the Shift Supervisor/Corporal. (Id. ¶ 10; Doc. 25-1 at 28.)1 

The Shift Supervisor/Corporal then forwards the Formal Grievance to the Jail Sergeant, 

who assigns it a number and attempts to resolve the issue. (Id.) If the Jail Sergeant is 

unable to resolve the issue, the detainee may appeal to the Jail Lieutenant and then to the 

Jail Commander. (Id.) 

If the Jail Commander does not resolve the Formal Grievance, the detainee may 

appeal to an External Referee for review and resolution. (Id. ¶ 11.) The External Referee’s 

decision is final and marks the completion of the Jail’s administrative remedy process. (Id.)

B. Plaintiff’s Grievances

1. Grievance First Step, # 186952

According to the Jail’s electronic grievance records, on December 29, 2018, 

Plaintiff submitted a “Grievance First Step” related to the events that gave rise to his threatto-safety claim in this action, in which he wrote, “I want to know why on 12.28.18 I was 

left in my cell for 35 mi[nutes.] Give me time to make a rope ? I told Mansfield. And 

she told me she would be back.” (Doc. 25-1 at 38.)2 

1 According to the Declaration of Apache County Jail Commander Michael 

Cirivello, detainees may also submit Formal Grievances electronically through the 

Grievance Tracker. (Doc. 25-1, Ex. 1 (Cirivello Decl.) ¶ 13.) The instructions Cirivello 

refers to from the Inmate Handbook do not discuss this option, however. (Doc. 25-1 at 

28.) Instead, they state only that the Jail Sergeant will provide the detainee the proper form, 

and the detainee must complete the form and turn it over to the Shift Supervisor/Corporal, 

who must number it with the number of the original grievance and return it to the Jail 

Sergeant. (Id.)

2 Defendants claim that, before submitting this grievance, jail records indicate 

Plaintiff first spoke to Nurse Kirk and other staff members regarding his request to be 

placed on suicide watch. (Doc. 25 ¶ 12.) In support, they provide the declaration testimony 

of Jail Commander Michael Cirivello, who claims to have personal knowledge of 

Plaintiff’s grievance files. (Doc. 25-1, Ex. 1 (Cirivello Decl.) ¶¶ 5, 15.) Apart from citing 

to an attachment of Plaintiff’s electronic submissions, however, Cirivello does not cite to 

Case 3:19-cv-08040-MTL-MTM Document 60 Filed 03/04/20 Page 5 of 10
- 6 -

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

On January 2, 2019, Defendant Sgt. McCarthy3responded, “Officer Mansfield 

reported your statement to medical and I. (sic) Medical responded to you over the 

intercom. I was in the process of determining where you could be housed at the time you 

attempted to hang yourself.” (Id. at 38−39.)

On January 2, 2019, Plaintiff wrote in response, “That is not how it gos ad (sic) u 

know that. I was left alone for 35 mines. (sic) So u pot me in harmes (sic) way.” (Id. at

39.) 

On January 5, 2019, “JA” responded, “Do you have any more questions we can 

attempt to answer for you?” (Id.) Plaintiff responded, “Yes why did u not come check on 

me for 35 minutes?” (Id.) 

On January 9, 2019, “JA” wrote, “That question has already been answered on 

01/02/2019 at 17:14 per Sgt. McCarthy. If you do not have any other questions this will 

be closed[.] Please be sure when doing the Grievance process this starts off in Misc. Thank 

you.” (Id.) 

2. Grievances on Officer, ## 191918, 191923

On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff submitted two grievances categorized as “Grievance 

on Officer.” (Id.) In the first of these, #191918, he wrote, 

I would like to make note that when I requested suicide watch 

and spoke to Mansfield[,] Nurse Destiny called my cell and 

asked me why I was [r]equesting suicide watch[.] No one came 

to check on me as I made a noose and hung myself. While I 

was in the hospital Nurse Destiny called Officer Warner’s 

personal cell phone ane (sic) asked to speak to me[.] I made 

sure Warner’s camera was on and she told me that [Sgt.]

any documentation of Plaintiff’s verbal interactions with staff; nor does he profess to have 

personal knowledge of these interactions. Absent personal knowledge or proper 

documentation, Defendants fail properly to support these facts. See Sapiano v. Millenium 

Entm’ t, LLC, CV 12-8122 PSG (MAN), 2013 WL 12120262, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 

2013) (“when a party refers to documentary evidence as the source of a factual allegation 

in an affidavit or declaration, the party must attach the relevant documents to the affidavit 

or declaration” ); see also Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir. 

1993) (upholding the district court’ s exclusion of affidavits that failed to attached contract 

documents that were referred to within the affidavits). 

3 The record entry only contains the initials “CSM” for the respondent, but a later 

entry makes clear that this response was from Sgt. McCarthy. (Doc. 25-1 at 39.) 

Case 3:19-cv-08040-MTL-MTM Document 60 Filed 03/04/20 Page 6 of 10
- 7 -

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

McCarthy overrode her. When I was brought back to the Jail 

Nurse Destiny approached my door in holding and told me 

again tha[t] McCarthy overrode her and that she[’]s just 

covering her ass that he told her that I didn’t need suicide 

watch.

(Id.) In the second of these Grievances on Officer, #191923, Plaintiff wrote, “On 12 28 18 

when I requested to go on suicide watch and then subsequently attempted to hang myself 

Sgt. M[c]Carthy overrode Nurse Destiny and told her to ignore me.” (Id.) There are no 

responses on record to either of these grievances. (Id.)

3. Inmate Requests

On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a paper “Inmate Request” to the Nurse, 

requesting to know if it is necessary “to have a cop with you when talking to a[n] inmate 

for security purposes,” to which he received the response, “yes we do unless there is a 

locked door between us.” (Doc. 5 at 2−3.) On March 17, 2019, Plaintiff submitted another 

paper “Inmate Request,” in which he asked, “if a[n] inmate as (sic) for suicide watch do 

you take them right away because they are a threat to themselves?” and he received the 

response, “as soon as possible.” (Id. at 4−5.) 

Plaintiff did not take any further steps in the grievance process related to his claims 

in this action. (Doc. 25-1, Ex. 1 ¶ 25.) 

IV. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claims in this action because, after he 

submitted a Grievance First Step on December 29, 2019 and “two additional requests using 

the ‘Grievance on Officer’ category on February 29, 2019,” he did not submit a formal 

grievance, which would have been the next step in the grievance process, and he took no 

further steps to pursue his administrative remedies. (Doc. 24 at 3.)

Defendants have not met their initial burden of showing that administrative 

remedies remained available to Plaintiff throughout the grievance process and Plaintiff 

nonetheless failed to exhaust those remedies. Albino, 747 F.3d atf3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2014); 

Brown, 422 F.3d at 936−37. First, as to whether Plaintiff failed to file a formal grievance, 

Case 3:19-cv-08040-MTL-MTM Document 60 Filed 03/04/20 Page 7 of 10
- 8 -

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

Defendants make no distinction in their Motion or supporting declaration between a 

“Grievance First Step” and a “Grievance on Officer,” both of which the evidence shows 

Plaintiff filed regarding his being left alone for 35 minutes after requesting suicide watch. 

(Doc. 25-1 at 38−39, 45.) There is also no explanation of these different categories in the 

Inmate Handbook. (See Doc. 25-1 at 28.) 

Absent additional facts, it is impossible to tell what role a Grievance on Officer 

plays in the overall grievance process or what instruction Plaintiff received about when to 

file a Grievance on Officer from which to conclude that Plaintiff knew filing a Grievance 

on Officer after a Grievance First Step was not the same thing as proceeding to a Formal 

Grievance, as Defendants argue Plaintiff was required to do.

4

 

It is also impossible to tell solely from the documentation of Plaintiff’s Grievance 

First Step if Plaintiff’s issue was properly referred up the chain of command—from an 

officer, to the Shift Supervisor/Corporal, to the Jail Sergeant—or whether, upon being 

unable to resolve the issue to Plaintiff’s satisfaction, the Jail Sergeant provided Plaintiff a 

“Formal Grievance form,” as described in the Inmate Handbook . (See Doc. 25-1 at 38.)

And it is unclear if Plaintiff received any instruction about how to proceed at that point, or 

how he was to interpret the bare response, “If you do not have any other questions this will 

be closed[.] Please be sure when doing the Grievance process this starts off in Misc.” (Id.

at 39.) See Brown, 422 F.3d at 937 (“information provided the prisoner is pertinent because 

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

(internal citation omitted).

Finally, and more fundamentally, the evidence shows that, after Plaintiff filed his

“Grievance First Step” and that grievance was closed without apparent resolution, Plaintiff 

filed two “Grievances on Officer,” specifically detailing the facts alleged in this action, and 

there is no record Plaintiff ever received a response to these filings or that prison staff took 

any further action to address Plaintiff’s “suicide watch” issue. (See id. at 45.) Absent 

4 Defendants attach a “flow chart” of the administrative remedy process in which a 

Grievance First Step and a Grievance on Officer appear to be interchangeable, but this flow 

chart is not included in the Inmate Handbook. (See Doc. 25-1 at 8.)

Case 3:19-cv-08040-MTL-MTM Document 60 Filed 03/04/20 Page 8 of 10
- 9 -

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

additional facts showing what options were available to Plaintiff to pursue his 

administrative remedies after prison staff closed his Grievance First Step without resolving 

the issue and then twice failed to respond to his Grievances on Officer, Defendants have 

not met their burden of showing that any additional administrative relief remained available 

to Plaintiff that he failed to exhaust. “[T]here can be no “absence of exhaustion” unless

some relief remains “available,” a defendant must demonstrate that pertinent relief 

remained available, whether at unexhausted levels of the grievance process or through 

awaiting the results of the relief already granted as a result of that process.” Brown, 422 

F.3d at 936–37 (emphasis in original).

Because Defendants have failed to meet their initial burden of showing that 

administrative remedies remained available to Plaintiff and he failed to exhaust those 

remedies, Plaintiff need not show anything, and the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment based on failure to exhaust. See Nissan, 210 F.3d at 1102–03.

V. Plaintiff’s Motion to Discuss

Plaintiff’s Motion to Discuss appears to be either an attempt to move for summary 

judgement on the merits or a belated attempt to respond to Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment based on failure to exhaust. To the extent Plaintiff appears to seek

summary judgment, he failed to comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure for doing so, and the Motion will be summarily denied. See Fed. Rule Civ. P. 

56; LRCiv. 56.1 (requiring, among other things, that the movant file a separate statement 

of facts). Moreover, because this action is currently stayed pending resolution of the 

exhaustion issue, a motion on the merits is premature. 

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment, his filing is untimely. Additionally, since Defendants have not met their initial 

burden of showing a failure to exhaust, a response is unnecessary and need not be 

considered. 

. . . .

. . . .

Case 3:19-cv-08040-MTL-MTM Document 60 Filed 03/04/20 Page 9 of 10
- 10 -

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

IT IS ORDERED:

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

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Discuss (Doc. 59), and 

the Motions are denied.

(2) The Court’ s stay of discovery pending resolution of the exhaustion issue 

(Doc. 39) is lifted. A Scheduling Order will be issued by the Magistrate Judge as a separate 

order.

(3) All other matters must remain with the Magistrate Judge for disposition as 

appropriate. 

Dated this 3rd day of March, 2020.

Case 3:19-cv-08040-MTL-MTM Document 60 Filed 03/04/20 Page 10 of 10