Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01656/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01656-1/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lee W. Collins, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1656-PHX-SMM-CRP

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendants have moved to

dismiss (Doc. #8) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff responded (Doc. #17) and Defendants

replied (Doc. #19). After careful review of these pleadings and the record, the Court will

grant Defendants’ motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants

Joe Arpaio and John Doe, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by

(1) threatening his safety due to overcrowding, (2) an inadequate and tainted diet, and

(3) overcrowding and inadequate facilities (Doc. #1). Defendant Arpaio was ordered to

answer the Complaint, and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (Docs. ##6, 8).

Defendant Arpaio argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because

he did not file any grievances or pursue any external grievance appeal (Doc. #8). Attached

to the motion were (1) an affidavit of Zelean Tademy, Hearing Officer for inmate discipline

and grievances, and (2) the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Inmate Grievance Procedure

(Docs. ##8, 10).

Case 2:05-cv-01656-SMM-CRP Document 21 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Plaintiff responded that the grievance procedures are flawed because there is no

recourse once an inmate is released from custody or transferred to a state facility (Doc. #17).

Moreover, the Sheriff’s Office routinely loses grievances, or summarily dismisses them (Id.).

Plaintiff attached an affidavit from another inmate, in which that inmate attested that he could

not exhaust the grievance procedures due to time constraints and the staff regularly avoids

dealing with grievances (Id.).

II. 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). To be

“properly exhausted,” the prisoner “must complete the administrative review process in

accordance with the applicable rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit

in federal court.” Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 

 Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 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.” Id. at 1119-20. 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). The proper

remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

III. 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

Case 2:05-cv-01656-SMM-CRP Document 21 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

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

unresolved 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. Tademy attested that Plaintiff did not file any grievances

regarding the allegations in his Complaint and did not file any External Appeals for

Grievances (Doc. #10 at ¶4).

Defendant Arpaio demonstrated that there is a grievance procedure, of which Plaintiff

failed to avail himself. Plaintiff’s argument that there is no avenue from grieving once an

inmate is released or transferred from custody is without merit. Plaintiff does not indicate

that he was unable to file a grievance due to his release or transfer, and he apparently did not

attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies while he was in Maricopa County custody or

thereafter. Finally, information Plaintiff received from another inmate is insufficient to

support an allegation that Plaintiff was “reliably informed” that there were no available

remedies. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 8) 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 27th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01656-SMM-CRP Document 21 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 3