Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03293/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03293-2/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 Joseph Arpaio was dismissed from this action on November 20, 2006 (Doc. # 18).

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Curtis Reed Cooper, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3293-PHX-MHM-MHB

ORDER

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

the Pinal County Sheriff, moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. # 17).1

 Plaintiff

responded and Defendant replied (Doc. ## 21, 23). The Court will deny Defendant’s motion

without prejudice.

I. Exhaustion

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). 

Case 2:05-cv-03293-MHM-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/07/07 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 Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint solely addressed the Maricopa County Jails while

Counts II and III addressed both the Maricopa and Pinal County Jails. Plaintiff’s claims

regarding conditions at the Durango, Lower Buckeye, and Estrella Jails were dismissed when

Defendant Arpaio’s Motion to Dismiss was granted (Doc. # 18). As a result, only Counts

II and III remain before the Court.

- 2 -

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. Id. at 1119-20. 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).

II. Analysis

 In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the Pinal County Jail was (1) overcrowded,

and (2) extremely unsanitary. (Doc. #1 at 5-6).2

 For both claims, Plaintiff averred that while

a grievance procedure existed at the jail, he failed to grieve any of his claims (Doc. # 1 at 5-

6). Rather, Plaintiff claimed that he was told his complaints were not grievable issues (Id.).

The Court required Defendant to answer (Doc. # 4).

 Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion, relying solely upon the affidavit

of Richard Celis, a Grievance Officer for inmate discipline and grievances. Celis attested

that Plaintiff failed to file any grievances while in Pinal County custody (Celis Aff. ¶ 6, Ex.

1, Doc. # 17). Celis further elucidated the process through which an inmate must grieve his

claims. The first step in the grievance process is “[t]he issue in question must be grievable

in nature as set forth in the policy . . . .” (Id. at ¶ 3a). Celis concluded that Plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with Pinal County policy. (Id. at ¶ 7). 

Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s motion on December 4, 2006 (Doc. # 21). Plaintiff

averred that he requested grievance forms, but was told by Pinal County staff that (1)

overcrowding and (2) being inside a cell during and after it was sprayed for insects were not

grievable issues (Id. at 1). Plaintiff seems to argue there were no “available remedies” and

therefore he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Case 2:05-cv-03293-MHM-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/07/07 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

3 Defendant mischaracterized Plaintiff’s argument by claiming that Plaintiff admitted

to not exhausting his administrative remedies because the administrative process would be

futile (Doc. # 23 at 2-3). Plaintiff’s argument is simply that he had no administrative

remedies “available” to him, and therefore exhaustion was not required. Brown, 422 F.3d

at 934-35.

- 3 -

While Plaintiff has not specifically named any of the officers who refused his request

for grievance forms, the Court finds that Defendant has not met his burden in demonstrating

that Plaintiff had an “available” remedy. Defendant’s argument focuses solely on the fact

that Plaintiff failed to file a single grievance while incarcerated in Pinal County custody. But

Plaintiff acknowledges he did not file a single grievance.3

 Plaintiff’s argument is based on

the fact that he did not have an available remedy. Defendant fails to dispute this argument.

First, Defendant’s affiant concedes in his affidavit that the Pinal County grievance policy

precludes grievances as to certain issues. Further, Defendant has failed to provide the Court

with a copy of the grievance policy, thereby preventing the Court from determining whether

the issues in Plaintiff’s Complaint are grievable pursuant to Pinal County policy. Moreover,

in his reply, Defendant wholly failed to counter Plaintiff’s argument that he was told his

issues were not grievable. Plaintiff’s argument is, ultimately, supported by Celis’ affidavit.

Simply put, Defendant concedes that the Pinal County grievance policy contemplates

ungrievable issues, Plaintiff claims he was told his issues were not grievable, and Defendant

does not contradict that assertion. 

Based on (1) the absence of any evidence of what precise issues are not grievable

pursuant to Pinal County policy, (2) Plaintiff’s uncontested claim that overcrowding and

unsanitary conditions are not grievable issues, and (3) no evidence as to whether other

inmates were able to grieve similar issues during the period of Plaintiff’s incarceration, the

Court concludes that Defendant has not met his burden in demonstrating a lack of exhaustion.

His motion will, therefore, be denied without prejudice. 

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-03293-MHM-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/07/07 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

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 17) is denied without

prejudice. 

DATED this 4th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-03293-MHM-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/07/07 Page 4 of 4