Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01515/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01515-1/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

SVK

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gregory Allen Chambers, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1515-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Gregory Allen Chambers filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff. (Doc. #1.) Defendant moves to dismiss

on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and (2) he has

not stated a claim entitling him to damages because he has not alleged a physical injury and

he is not entitled to punitive damages. (Doc. #6.) The Court issued an Order, required under

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003), informing Plaintiff of his

obligation to respond and the evidence necessary to rebut Defendant’s contentions. (Doc.

#7.) Plaintiff responded, and Defendant did not file a reply. (Doc. #8.) The Court will grant

the motion.

I. Background 

Plaintiff’s Complaint raised three counts. The Court dismissed Counts I and II and

directed Defendant to answer Count III. (Doc. #3.) In Count III, Plaintiff alleged that

Defendant’s policies resulted in overcrowding, unsanitary conditions which led to illness,

insufficient toilets and cleaning supplies, and a lack of razor blades which caused Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-01515-DGC-LOA Document 11 Filed 04/30/08 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 -

to look unkempt for court.

II. Motion to Dismiss

A. Legal Standard

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a prisoner may not bring a lawsuit

with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 unless all available administrative remedies

are exhausted. 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).

Defendant 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. 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). 

B. Parties’ Contentions

Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as

required by the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Doc. #6.) 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, 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

Case 2:07-cv-01515-DGC-LOA Document 11 Filed 04/30/08 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 -

procedure when they receive the “MCSO Rules and Regulations for Inmates.” (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.)

She further attests that according to the Sheriff’s Office records, Plaintiff filed no grievances

during his incarceration under booking number P278024. (Id. ¶ 8.) Also attached to the

motion are excerpts from Rules and Regulations for Inmates, “Grievance Procedures”; and

a sample Inmate Grievance Form. (Id., Exs. B, C.)

Plaintiff’s unsworn response asserts that in the 8 months he was at the jail, he asked

for grievance forms 11 times. (Doc. #8 at 4.) Plaintiff asserts that the “usual response [was]

[we’re] out of grievance forms, or were just ignored.” (Id.) In his verified Complaint,

Plaintiff asserted that as to administrative remedies, “Detention Officers [won’t] hand out

grievance slips. And if an inmate does file a grievance he is rolled out.” (Doc. #1 at 5.)

Plaintiff asserts that he cannot give dates “because at the time [he] didn’t think he would be

filing a lawsuit.” (Id.) He lists the names of 5 officers and the number of times they did not

give him grievance forms. (Id.) The first and only date listed for a denial of grievance forms

is October 2007. (Id.) 

C. Analysis

Defendant has met his burden of demonstrating a failure to exhaust remedies as to the

claims in Count III. Defendant submits evidence that there is a grievance system, that

inmates are informed of the process, and that Plaintiff did not file any grievance on the issue

of overcrowding, unsanitary conditions and the other matters raised in Count III.

Plaintiff argues that detention officers do not hand out grievance forms when asked

for them. In Brown, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that information provided to the prisoner was

pertinent to the issue of the availability of an administrative remedy and noted that if prison

officials inform the prisoner that he cannot file a grievance, the formal grievance proceeding

was never “available” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Brown, 422 F.3d at 937

(citing Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 112-13 (3d Cir. 2002)). See also Miller v. Norris, 247

F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (a remedy that prison officials prevent a prisoner from using

is not an “available” remedy under §1997e). Plaintiff never claims that he attempted to file

a grievance about the claims in Count III, and the October 2007 date on which an officer

Case 2:07-cv-01515-DGC-LOA Document 11 Filed 04/30/08 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 -

refused to give Plaintiff grievance forms is well after the commencement of this lawsuit in

August 2007. (Doc. #1.) 

Because Plaintiff makes only general and largely unsworn allegations about not

receiving grievance forms, the Court concludes that he has not overcome Defendant’s

specific evidence of an available remedy. Defendant has met his burden to demonstrate that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The claim therefore will be dismissed

without prejudice. The Court need not address Defendant’s additional arguments. Because

there are no claims remaining, the Court will terminate the action. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6) is granted, and the claim is

dismissed without prejudice.

(2) This action is dismissed, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01515-DGC-LOA Document 11 Filed 04/30/08 Page 4 of 4