Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02309/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02309-2/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

JDN

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Walter Reed Craft, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2309-PHX-DGC (JCG)

ORDER

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

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #18). Plaintiff responded and Defendants replied

(Doc. ##20, 21). Plaintiff then filed a sur-response (Doc. #23). The Court will grant

Defendants’ motion.

I. Background

In Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, he alleged that the jail pharmacist

withheld prescribed medication and was thereby deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical

needs (Doc. #10 at 4). In Count II, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Frisby, a cell assignment

officer, violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights when he assigned Plaintiff to a top tier bunk

despite Plaintiff’s knee infection, which inhibited his ability to climb up and down, resulting

in his injury in a fall (Id. at 5). The Court ordered an answer, and Defendants filed a Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. ##15, 18).

In their motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

Case 2:05-cv-02309-DGC-JCG Document 24 Filed 10/12/06 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 -

(Doc. #18). In support of the motion, Defendants submit the affidavit of Zelean Tademy, a

Sergeant assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit (Ex. 1, Doc. #18). Tademy attests that inmates

are notified of the grievance procedure when they receive the “MCSO [Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office] Rules and Regulations for Inmates” (Tademy Aff. ¶ 4). According to

sheriff’s office records, Plaintiff did not file any grievances concerning the denial of medical

care or the right to safe housing during his confinement at the jail (Id. ¶ 7). Also attached to

the motion was a copy of the jail’s internal Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy DJ-3, and

two pages of the “MCSO Rules and Regulations for Inmates” (Exs. A-B, Doc. #18).

The Court issued an order informing Plaintiff of his obligation to respond and the

quantum of evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendants’ contentions (Doc. #19).

Plaintiff filed a response in which he asserts that the Rules and Regulations do not inform

inmates that they may obtain a copy of the DJ-3 Policy through Inmate Legal Services upon

request (Doc. #20). In addition, the Rules and Regulations do not inform inmates how to

continue the grievance process when they are transferred to another facility (Id. at A1-A2).

Plaintiff further argues that, contrary to Tademy’s assertions, he submitted three grievances

concerning the lack of medical care, but only one received a response. He argues that

without responses, and without any guidance on how to proceed with a grievance upon his

transfer to a different facility, he exhausted his available remedies (Id. at A3). In support of

his response, Plaintiff submitted copies of his grievances, including the complaint which was

responded to and that he grieved through to the final step of the External Referee (Tabs 1-4F,

Doc. #20). 

Defendants’ reply contends that the grievances submitted by Plaintiff are not related

to the claims in this action (Doc. #21). They also contend that all of the grievances are dated

after August 2, 2005, the date of Plaintiff’s original Complaint; thus, Plaintiff did not exhaust

his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required under the PLRA (Id. at 4).

Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply and Sur-Reply to Defendants’

Reply to Plaintiff’s Response” seeking to respond to Defendants’ newly raised argument that

Plaintiff failed to submit his grievances prior to filing his original Complaint (Doc. #23).

Case 2:05-cv-02309-DGC-JCG Document 24 Filed 10/12/06 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 -

Plaintiff did not, however, incorporate any memorandum to support his sur-reply.

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. Id. 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). 

Defendants contend that because Plaintiff failed to exhaust all of his counts, the entire

action should be dismissed (Doc. #18). The “total exhaustion” rule was rejected by the Ninth

Circuit in Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1173-75 (9th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed, 74

U.S.L.W. 3425 (2006). The validity of the “total exhaustion” rule is presently pending

before the Supreme Court in Williams v. Overton, 136 Fed. Appx. 859, 2005 WL 1514102

(6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished), cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 1463 (March 6, 2006). Until the

Supreme Court decides to the contrary, the binding precedent in this circuit is that only

unexhausted claims are dismissed, not the entire action. Lira, 427 F.3d at 1175-76. 

III. Analysis

According to the documents attached to the Motion to Dismiss, there are five steps

in the jail grievance process, the final step being an appeal to the External Referee (Ex. A,

Doc. #18). In his verified Amended Complaint Plaintiff was asked about his pursuit of the

grievance procedures. He alleged that he appealed both of his claims to the highest level

Case 2:05-cv-02309-DGC-JCG Document 24 Filed 10/12/06 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 -

(Doc. #10 at 4-5). Plaintiff proffered evidence that he appealed one grievance through the

final step of the grievance process (Tabs 1-4F, Doc. #20). The External Referee described

the issue as “[t]his grievance complains that he was injured in a fall [due] to negligence of

staff and is being charged a medical [sic] even though he has not received medical treatment”

(Tab 4F, Doc. #20). In light of this evidence, it is troubling that Defendants definitively

assert in their motion that Plaintiff did not file any grievances related to the denial of proper

medical care or safe housing.

Under the PLRA, however, a prisoner must exhaust remedies before filing suit.

Vaden, 449 F.3d at 1050-51. Plaintiff’s External Appeal was completed on December 13,

2005, after he filed this action (Tab 4F, Doc. #20). Because Plaintiff did not exhaust his

available administrative remedies prior to the filing of his original Complaint, he failed to

comply with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. The Court will therefore dismiss this

action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not preclude Plaintiff from

filing a new action on the same claims. While dismissal may result in the expenditure of

additional resources on the part of the parties and the Court, Defendants’ motion must be

granted. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002).

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #18) is granted.

Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. The Clerk of Court

shall enter a judgment of dismissal accordingly.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02309-DGC-JCG Document 24 Filed 10/12/06 Page 4 of 4