Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02803/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02803-1/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 JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Herlindo Fuentes-Ramos,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2803-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER

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

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. # 6). Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. # 9) and was

provided additional time to file a supplemental response. Plaintiff filed a supplemental

response on June 1, 2007 (Doc. # 16) and Defendant replied in support of his motion (Doc.

# 17). The Court will grant Defendant’s motion and terminate this action.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendant Joseph Arpaio alleging that

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated by (1) overcrowding, (2) unsanitary conditions,

and (3) insufficient and spoiled meals at the Towers Jail (Doc. # 1 at 4-6). Defendant Arpaio

was ordered to answer the Complaint and he subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on the

ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (Doc. ## 3, 6). In support

of his motion, Defendant submitted (1) an affidavit of Inmate Hearing Sergeant Susan Fisher,

(2) the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s Inmate Grievance Procedures, (3) excerpts from

Case 2:06-cv-02803-SMM-JRI Document 19 Filed 06/08/07 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 -

the Rules and Regulations for Inmates, (4) an Inmate Grievance Form, and (5) a copy of a

grievance Plaintiff filed (Doc. # 6, Ex. 1, Attachs. A-D).

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). 

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. Wyatt, 315 F.3d 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). 

III. Analysis

Plaintiff brought a Complaint claiming that the Towers Jail was severely overcrowded

and unsanitary and that Plaintiff received insufficient and spoiled meals (Doc. # 1 at 4-6).

In his Complaint, Plaintiff acknowledged that a grievance system existed at the Jail and that

he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claims (id.). Rather, Plaintiff

claimed on the face of his Complaint that his claims were not grievable issues (id.). 

In support of his motion to dismiss, Defendant submitted the affidavit of Sergeant

Susan Fisher (Fisher Aff., Ex. 1, Doc. # 6). Fisher asserts that she has searched Plaintiff’s

file for records of grievances and that Plaintiff filed one grievance while incarcerated in the

Maricopa County Jail System, but that the grievance related to when Plaintiff would be

Case 2:06-cv-02803-SMM-JRI Document 19 Filed 06/08/07 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

1

 Defendant’s motion also sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to allege a

physical injury as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Defendant also argued that Plaintiff is not

entitled to punitive damages against Arpaio in his official capacity (Doc. # 6 at 5-8). But because

the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to exhaust, it need not reach Defendant’s

- 3 -

released from custody (id. at ¶ 8). Moreover, Fisher asserts that Plaintiff failed to exhaust

his sole grievance to the External Appeal level.

Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s motion on April 23, 2007 (Doc. # 9). But Plaintiff

did not address Defendant’s claim that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before

filing suit. Plaintiff filed another pleading on May 3, 2007 that did not at all relate to

Defendant’s motion; instead, that pleading sought to attach the personal property of

Defendant as part of a prejudgment lien (Doc. # 11). Finally, Plaintiff filed a supplemental

response to Defendant’s motion on June 1, 2007. That response, however, similarly failed

to respond to the allegation of non-exhaustion. Rather, the response presents allegations of

mistreatment in the Maricopa County Jails by Defendant Arpaio. 

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s immaterial responses to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff

averred in his verified Complaint that he was told his claims were not grievable issues (Doc.

# 1 at 4-6). Based on those averments, Plaintiff seems to argue there were no “available

remedies” to him and therefore he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies.

While it is true that an inmate Plaintiff must only exhaust available remedies, Plaintiff’s

argument still fails for at least two reasons. First, Plaintiff has not specifically named any

of the officers who told him his issues were not grievable nor has he described with any

degree of specificity what transpired to prevent him from filing grievances. Second,

Plaintiff’s argument is belied by the fact that he was successful in utilizing the grievance

process at least one other time. 

In light of Plaintiff’s generalized allegation that detention officers told him that his

issues were not grievable, Defendant’s evidence that a grievance process existed at the jail

for any issue, and the fact that Plaintiff was able to utilize the grievance process for another

issue, Defendant has demonstrated that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available remedies with

respect to overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and insufficient and spoiled meals.1

Case 2:06-cv-02803-SMM-JRI Document 19 Filed 06/08/07 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

other contentions. 

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 6) is granted, and

Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot and the

Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 7th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02803-SMM-JRI Document 19 Filed 06/08/07 Page 4 of 4