Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02684/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02684-4/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

Anthony Joseph Amara, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2684-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

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

(Doc. #13) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff responded (Doc. #15) and Defendant replied

(Doc. #23). Plaintiff then filed a second response (Doc. #25), which Defendant has moved

to strike (Doc. #27). After careful review of these pleadings and the record, the Court will

deny Defendant’s Motion to Strike and grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

I. Background

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

that his constitutional rights were violated by (1) overcrowding, (2) unsanitary conditions,

and (3) an inadequate and tainted diet (Doc. #1). Defendant Arpaio was ordered to answer

the Complaint and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (Docs. ## 9, 13). Defendant

argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he filed no

grievances (Doc. #13). Attached to the motion were (1) the Maricopa County Inmate

Grievance Procedures and (2) an affidavit of Susan Fisher, a Hearing Officer for inmate

discipline and grievances (Id.).

Case 2:05-cv-02684-SMM-LOA Document 30 Filed 10/02/06 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 -

Plaintiff responded and conceded that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies

(Doc. #15). Plaintiff argued, however, that he should be excused because the detention

officers refused him forms (Id.). Plaintiff asserted that he is currently attempting to exhaust

his administrative remedies (Id.). Plaintiff submitted letters supporting his allegations

regarding his current attempts to exhaust (Docs. ##15, 17, 24). Notably, Plaintiff’s letters

were sent after he was transferred to the Arizona Department of Corrections, and are not on

inmate grievance forms (Id.). Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s Inmate Legal Services has

responded to the letters and indicated that because Plaintiff is no longer in Maricopa County

custody, they cannot assist him (Id.).

Defendant replied that because Plaintiff is no longer in Maricopa County custody, the

administrative remedy process is no longer available (Doc. #23 at 4). Attached to the reply

was an affidavit of Sergeant Zelean Tademy, assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit (Doc. #23).

Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s reply, again arguing that the detention officers failed to

provide forms and that he is currently seeking to exhaust (Doc. #25). Defendant has moved

to strike the response (Doc. #27). Defendant’s motion to strike will be denied.

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). Moreover, Plaintiff must first exhaust available administrative remedies

before bringing an action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d

1047,1050 (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). 

Case 2:05-cv-02684-SMM-LOA Document 30 Filed 10/02/06 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 -

 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

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. See Doc. #13, ex. 1.

Fisher attested that Plaintiff did not file any inmate grievances prior to filing the

instant Complaint (Doc. #13, ex. 2 at ¶¶4-5). Tademy attested that inmates are not limited

in what they may grieve, detention officers pass out grievance forms on a daily basis, and the

Hearing Unit has received many grievances on the issues of overcrowding and diet (Doc.

#23, ex. 1 at ¶¶3-5).

Defendant has demonstrated that there exists a grievance procedure to which Plaintiff

failed to avail himself. Plaintiff’s allegations that unnamed detention officers refused to

provide him grievance forms 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). Moreover, Plaintiff must exhaust his remedies before filing a

Complaint. See Vaden, 449 F.3d at 1050. Thus, Plaintiff’s current attempts to exhaust are

Case 2:05-cv-02684-SMM-LOA Document 30 Filed 10/02/06 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

1 Defendant argues that Plaintiff may not exhaust because he is no longer in Maricopa

County custody. Although this Court need not address this argument at this junction, such argument

might lead to a conclusion that there are no available remedies. See Brown, 422 F.3d at 934-35.

- 4 -

not relevant to the instant action. Accordingly, because Plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies before filing the instant action, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will

be granted.1

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendant’s motion to Strike (Doc. #27) is denied.

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13) is granted. Plaintiff’s action is

dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. 

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

DATED this 27th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02684-SMM-LOA Document 30 Filed 10/02/06 Page 4 of 4