Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01089/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01089-0/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

1

Upon screening, the Court dismissed 16 named and unnamed “Doe” Defendants

(Doc. 8).

JDN

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy Tim Cervantez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Deputy Warden Creedio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1089-PHX-DGC (SPL)

ORDER

Plaintiff Timothy Tim Cervantez brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Deputy Warden Barrios (Doc. 5).1

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies (Doc. 20), which Plaintiff opposes (Doc. 22). The Court will grant Defendant’s

motion and terminate the action.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claims arose during his confinement at the Arizona State Prison ComplexRynning Unit, in Florence Arizona (Doc. 5 at 1). In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff

alleged that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was placed in a cell with

another inmate with whom he previously had a physical confrontation (id. at 4, 12-14).

Plaintiff averred that he informed Defendant about his safety concerns but that Defendant

failed to move Plaintiff to another cell (id.). Plaintiff stated that he was subsequently

Case 2:11-cv-01089-DGC Document 30 Filed 02/23/12 Page 1 of 6
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’s failure-to-protect claim is set out in Count II (Doc. 5). The Court

dismissed Count I, which alleged a due process claim (Doc. 8).

- 2 -

attacked by his cellmate (id.).2

II. Motion to Dismiss 

A. Defendant’s Contentions

Defendant now moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on the ground that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (Doc. 20). In support, Defendant submits the

declaration of Aurora Aguilar, an ADC Hearing Officer (id., Ex. 1, Aguilar Decl. ¶ 1).

Aguilar describes the steps in the ADC grievance process, which are set forth in ADC

Department Order (DO) 802 and which were modified by Director’s Instruction (DI) 287 in

May 2010 (id. ¶¶ 3, 5, Exs. A-B). First, an inmate must try to resolve his complaint through

informal means (id. ¶ 5). If the issue is not resolved, the inmate may file an informal

complaint by inmate letter within 10 days after the issue arises (id.). If the inmate is not

satisfied with the inmate-letter response, he may file a formal grievance to the Deputy

Warden (id.). If not satisfied with the Deputy Warden’s response, the inmate may file a

grievance appeal to the Warden (id.). And if not satisfied with that response, the final step

is an appeal to the ADC Director (id.). Aguilar states that inmates receive a written and oral

explanation of the grievance process during their orientation and copies of DO 802 and DI

287 are available in each unit’s library (id. ¶¶ 8-9). Aguilar avers that she reviewed the

Grievance Appeal Log and Grievance Appeal File and determined that Plaintiff did not

appeal any grievance related to his confinement in a cell with an inmate who had assaulted

him (id. ¶¶ 11-12).

In his motion, Defendant notes that Plaintiff admitted in his First Amended Complaint

that he did not exhaust his administrative grievances (Doc. 20 at 5, citing Doc. 5 at 4). Based

on Plaintiff’s admission and Aguilar’s declaration, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not

exhaust remedies for his claim against Defendant and the action should be dismissed (id.).

Case 2:11-cv-01089-DGC Document 30 Filed 02/23/12 Page 2 of 6
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

The Court issued the Notice required under Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120

n. 14 (9th Cir. 2003), which informed Plaintiff of his obligation to respond and the evidence

necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s contentions (Doc. 21). 

- 3 -

B. Plaintiff’s Response3

Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 22). In support of his opposition,

Plaintiff submits his declaration, which sets forth the following facts:

In October 2010, Plaintiff was assault by two inmates and suffered extensive injuries

(Doc. 24 at 1). After he was treated at medical, he was placed in the central detention unit

(CDU) and subject to a disciplinary hearing, at which he was found guilty of starting the

incident that led to his assault (id. at 2). While he was in CDU, he was placed with inmate

Valdez; after a physical confrontation with Valdez on February 2, 2011, Plaintiff was moved

to another cell (id.). Although numerous officers attempted to get Valdez and Plaintiff to cell

together again, both inmates refused (id. at 2-3). Defendant then came to CDU and promised

Plaintiff that Valdez would not seek revenge for past differences and that Defendant would

do whatever he could to get Plaintiff and Valdez out of CDU and back on the yard (id. at 3).

Neither Defendant nor Valdez kept their word, and Plaintiff was severely assaulted (id.).

Plaintiff asserts that he was not able to file a grievance prior to the assault by Valdez

because he relied on Defendant’s assurances that Plaintiff would be protected and, thus, he

could not allege a problem until the assault occurred (Doc. 22 at 2-3). Plaintiff explains that

under DO 802, Defendant is the official with final authority to review grievances and a

grievance in this situation would have been futile since Defendant was the one who caused

the problem (id. at 3). Plaintiff contends that because Defendant promised to help him, there

was no need to file a grievance (id. at 4). Plaintiff adds that Defendant’s promise came with

an ultimatum—either house with Valdez or get written up for disciplinary violation (id.). 

Plaintiff provides further argument regarding the deliberate-indifference standard and

his contention that in this situation, both elements of the standard are met and Defendant is

liable for violating his Eighth Amendment rights (id. at 5-7).

Case 2:11-cv-01089-DGC Document 30 Filed 02/23/12 Page 3 of 6
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 -

C. Defendant’s Reply

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to present any evidence to show that he

attempted to exhaust remedies for his claim (Doc. 23). Defendant maintains that even though

a grievance could not reverse the inmate assault on Plaintiff, he was nonetheless required to

exhaust remedies for his complaint (id. at 2). Defendant states that exhaustion cannot be

waived on grounds of futility or inadequacy, as Plaintiff argues (id.). Defendant further

states that even if Defendant had denied Plaintiff’s grievance, the administrative procedures

provide that Plaintiff could have appealed Defendant’s denial to the ADC Director (id. at

2-3). 

III. Exhaustion

A. Legal Standard

Under the PLRA, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before

bringing a federal action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119

(9th Cir. 2009). 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). A prisoner must complete the

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable rules. See Woodford v.

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212 (2007). Thus,

the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1119. 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). If a court finds that the plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Wyatt, 315 F.3d

at 1120. 

Case 2:11-cv-01089-DGC Document 30 Filed 02/23/12 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

B. Analysis

As stated, Defendant must demonstrate that there were remedies available to Plaintiff.

See id. at 1119; see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendant

submits evidence that ADC had an established grievance process and Plaintiff was aware of

and had access to that process (Doc. 20, Ex. A, Aguilar Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8-9; Doc. 5 at 4 ¶ 5(a)).

In his pleading, Plaintiff indicated that he did not submit a request for administrative

relief because the assault had already occurred and the “damage was done” (Doc. 5 at 4

¶ 5(b), (d)). Plaintiff’s only explanation for not filing a grievance after the assault—to

complain about Defendant’s failure to ensure Plaintiff’s safety—is that such a grievance

would have been futile (Doc. 22 at 3). As argued by Defendant, a claim that a grievance

would be futile does not excuse the exhaustion requirement. See Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n. 6.

And because exhaustion does not turn on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim, his arguments related

to whether he can show deliberate indifference by Defendant are not considered on

Defendant’s motion. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. 

Defendant has met his burden to show that remedies were available to Plaintiff, but

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claim. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will therefore be

granted and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 20).

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is granted; the First Amended

Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment of dismissal accordingly.

Case 2:11-cv-01089-DGC Document 30 Filed 02/23/12 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

(4) For the reasons set forth herein, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal

from the judgment in this action would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01089-DGC Document 30 Filed 02/23/12 Page 6 of 6