Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01803/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01803-1/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

Christopher Hamblin,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1803-PHX-MHM-LOA

ORDER

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

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. # 11). Plaintiff responded, and Defendant replied

(Doc. ## 13, 16). 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) insufficient and spoiled meals, (2)

overcrowding, and (3) unsanitary conditions at the Durango 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, 11). In

support of his motion, Defendant submitted (1) an affidavit of Sergeant Zelean Tademy and

(2) the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s Inmate Grievance Procedures (Doc. # 11, Ex. 1).

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01803-MHM-LOA Document 20 Filed 05/07/07 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 -

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). 

Defendants bear 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 Durango 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.). 

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

Zelean Tademy (Tademy Aff., Ex. 1, Doc. # 11). Tademy asserts that he has searched

Plaintiff’s file for records of grievances and that Plaintiff filed three grievances while

incarcerated in the Maricopa County Jail System, but that those grievances dealt solely with

the underlying reasons for Plaintiff’s incarceration and the need for a towel (Id. at ¶ 4). 

Moreover, Tademy asserts that those grievances were not exhausted to the External Appeal

level.

Case 2:05-cv-01803-MHM-LOA Document 20 Filed 05/07/07 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 -

Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s motion on November 20, 2006 (Doc. # 13).

Plaintiff averred that in July 2005 he requested grievance forms to address his claims, but

was told that his claims were not grievable issues (Doc. # 13 at 2). 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 refused his request for grievance forms 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 other times. Indeed, Plaintiff was able to grieve his need

for another towel (Doc. # 16, Ex. 1). 

Defendant replied that all issues may be grieved and that detention officers pass out

grievance forms to inmates who request them (Doc. # 16 at 4). Moreover, Defendant has

proffered evidence that during the time of Plaintiff’s incarceration in the Maricopa County

Jail System 142 inmates filed grievances related to overcrowding. 

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 other

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

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

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 11) is granted, and

Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

DATED this 4th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01803-MHM-LOA Document 20 Filed 05/07/07 Page 3 of 3