Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02845/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02845-1/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

BL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Anthony Stokes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2845-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendant has moved to dismiss

(Dkt. #9) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff has responded (Dkt. #12) and Defendant has

replied (Dkt. #14). The Court will deny Defendant’s motion.

A. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action naming as Defendants Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office, Towers Jail Facility, and Joseph Arpaio (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff alleged that his

constitutional rights were violated by (1) overcrowding, (2) unsanitary conditions, and (3) the

failure to provide him with an appropriate diet to accommodate his medical condition (Dkt.

#1). This Court dismissed Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Towers Jail

Facility, and ordered Defendant Arpaio to answer the Complaint (Dkt. # 4). 

Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies (Dkt. #9). Defendant maintained that Count III should

be dismissed without prejudice and that Plaintiff should be allowed to amend his Complaint

to limit Counts I and II to exhausted claims (Id. at 6). Attached to the motion were (1)

Maricopa County Inmate Grievance Polices, (2) various inmate grievances filed by Plaintiff,

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 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 -

and (3) an affidavit of Zelean Tademy, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Officer (Dkt. #10).

Plaintiff filed several inmate grievances, including the following:

An inmate grievance alleging that Plaintiff suffered from a staph infection due

to unsanitary and overcrowded conditions, and that he had to pay a co-pay for

the medical treatment. Plaintiff appealed the grievance to the jail commander,

stating that he suffered from staph infections and did not believe he should

have to pay a medical co-pay. The jail commander responded to Plaintiff’s

complaint regarding the co-payment. Plaintiff then appealed to the external

referee, again grieving the fact that he did not have a choice of providers and

had to pay for medical services because his medical problems were the result

of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. The external referee responded

that the co-pays would be paid according to law and policy, and that there was

no evidence to suggest that overcrowding and an unsanitary environment were

the cause of his infections. (Dkt. #10, exh. D, tab 2).

Plaintiff filed a Response, arguing that he exhausted his remedies (Dkt. #12). He

further asserted that he does not have access to the full policy regarding inmate grievances

(Id.). Plaintiff attached copies of various grievances demonstrating his efforts to grieve the

issues regarding his diet (Dkt. #12).

Defendant responded by withdrawing his motion as to Count III – the claim

concerning Plaintiff’s diet (Dkt. # 14). Defendant maintains, however, that Plaintiff failed

to exhaust his claims of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions (Id.). Defendant

acknowledges that Plaintiff exhausted his claim of being housed without running water, but

argues that this issue is so intertwined with Counts I and II that the Complaint should be

dismissed without prejudice so that Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint containing only

exhausted claims (Id.).

B. Legal Standard

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner may

not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless all

available administrative remedies are exhausted. See Roles v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016, 1017

(9th Cir. 2006). Exhaustion is mandated “regardless of the relief offered through

administrative procedures.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). It is required in

all inmate suits regarding prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002). The

purpose of the exhaustion requirement is to “afford corrections officials time and opportunity

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 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 -

to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.” Brown v.

Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Porter, 534 U.S. at 525). 

 “The defendants have the burden of raising and proving a prisoner’s failure to exhaust

under the PLRA.” Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 626 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 126 S. Ct.

647 (2005). The Court considers exhaustion as a matter of abatement in an unenumerated

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) motion and “may look beyond the pleadings and

decide disputed issues of fact.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003).

The 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).

C. Analysis

According to the documents attached to the Motion to Dismiss, an inmate should seek

to resolve a conflict through the Maricopa County Jail System’s Inmate Grievance

Procedures. Specifically, an inmate who wishes to file a grievance will be provided a

Grievance Form upon request, and must submit the form to a detention officer. The

grievance is forwarded to the shift Supervisor and then to the Hearing Officer. If the Hearing

Officer is unable to resolve the grievance, the inmate may appeal his decision to the jail

commander, whose decision may be appealed to an External Referee. The External

Referee’s decision is final.

Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated due to (1) overcrowding,

(2) unsanitary conditions, and (3) the failure to provide him with an appropriate diet (Dkt.

#1). Defendants concede that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies as to Count III.

 According to the exhibits introduced by Defendant, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance

regarding overcrowding and unsanitary conditions (Dkt. #10, exh D, tab 2 at unnumbered 1).

Further, Plaintiff appealed the denial of his grievances to the external referee, who responded

by addressing the co-pay issue and finding that there was no evidence to suggest that the jail

conditions of overcrowding and unsanitary environment were the cause of his staph

infections (Dkt. #10, exh. D, tab 2 at unnumbered 7). Based on this evidence, Plaintiff filed

an inmate grievance concerning overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. Although the jail

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 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 -

commander did not specifically address the issues, the external referee did. Plaintiff thereby

afforded Defendant time and an opportunity to address his complaints regarding

overcrowding and unsanitary conditions “internally before allowing the initiation of a federal

case.” See Brown, 422 F.3d at 936. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 9) is denied.

DATED this 13th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02845-DGC-MEA Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 Page 4 of 4