Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01165/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01165-1/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 1

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

n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. #8.)

WO SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Sam Parisi, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1165-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Sam Parisi filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio. (Doc. #1.) Defendant moves to dismiss on the

ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. #7.) The motion

is ready.1

 (Doc. ##9, 10.)

The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part. 

I. Background 

Plaintiff alleged in Count I of his Complaint that Defendant sets policy and

deliberately instructs his staff to feed inmates only two meals per day. Plaintiff contended

that the meals are stale, spoiled, and lack necessary nutrition and calories. In Count II, he

asserted that Defendant deliberately sets policy and directs his staff to overcrowd the holding

cells in the Fourth Avenue and Madison Avenue Jails and that the conditions are unsanitary.

Case 2:09-cv-01165-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/20/09 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 -

 (Doc. #1.) The Court directed Defendant to answer Counts I and II and dismissed the

remaining Count. (Doc. #4.)

II. Motion to Dismiss

A. Legal Standard

 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a prisoner must exhaust available

administrative remedies before bringing a federal action concerning prison conditions. 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). And 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 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. 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).

B. Parties’ Contentions

1. Defendant

 In support of his motion, Defendant submits the affidavit of Susan Fisher, an External

Grievance Coordinator with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). (Doc. #7,

Fisher Aff. ¶ 1.) Fisher attests that her duties include receipt, processing, tracking, and

storage of inmate grievances. (Id. ¶ 2.) To initiate the informal grievance process, the

inmate submits a grievance form. If the detention officer cannot resolve the issue, the officer

forwards the grievance to the shift supervisor. If the shift supervisor cannot resolve the

matter, the grievance is forwarded to the hearing officer. (Id. ¶ 7.) If the inmate is not

satisfied with the outcome of the informal grievance process, he can file a formal grievance

Case 2:09-cv-01165-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/20/09 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 -

by filing the Institutional Grievance Appeal with the Jail Commander. If he is not satisfied

with the Jail Commander’s decision, the inmate may file an External Grievance Appeal,

which is forwarded to the External Referee. That person’s decision concludes the MCSO

Grievance process and exhausts the inmate’s administrative remedies. (Id.; Ex. B, MCSO

Inmate Grievance Procedure Policy DJ-3.) Defendant also submits excerpts from the MCSO

Rules and Regulations for Inmates. (Id., Ex. A.)

Fisher attests that Plaintiff filed no grievances regarding overcrowding and unsanitary

intake/booking or holding cells or regarding portions or quantities of food. (Id. ¶ 10.) She

further attests that both of these matters are grievable issues. (Id. ¶ 11.) 

2. Plaintiff

In opposition, Plaintiff submits Grievance Forms, dated May 17, 2009, grieving the

meal policy and the overcrowding policy (Doc. #9, Exs. A, B); and the statements of inmates

Sullivan, dated May 19 (id., Ex. C), Hillyer, dated May 19 (id. Exs D), Hillyer, dated Aug.

8 (id., Ex. E), Horstman, dated Aug. 8 (id., Ex. F), and Hillyer, dated Aug. 8 (id., Ex. G). 

Plaintiff asserts that his evidence shows that MCSO purposely denies inmates access

to the grievance process. (Doc. #9 at 2-3.) With respect to the two grievances that he

attaches to his opposition, Sullivan and Hillyer state that each witnessed Plaintiff present

grievances on May 17 to the sergeant on duty, who, after hearing Plaintiff describe the

grievances, said that the issues were non-grievable and refused to accept the grievances.

(Exs. C, D.) Hillyer also states that he and Horstman were present when Plaintiff stopped

Officer Negbee on August 8 at about 6:30 p.m. regarding filing grievances on food

necessities and overcrowding in holding cells and that Negbee said the issues were nongrievable. (Ex. A, see Ex. F.) Hillyer also states that he was present on August 8 at 10:30

a.m. and that Officer Volenti told Plaintiff that these issues were not grievable. (Ex. G.)

Plaintiff argues that he was denied access to the grievance process. (Doc. #9 at 4-5.)

3. Reply

 Defendant argues that there is no evidence that Plaintiff was not allowed to grieve

these issues other than his statements that some unidentified on-duty sergeant claimed that

Case 2:09-cv-01165-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/20/09 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 -

Plaintiff could not grieve these issues; Defendant asserts that Plaintiff did not attempt to

identify the on-duty sergeant either by name or with a physical description (e.g. hair color,

height, weight, etc.) or even whether that person is a male or female. (Doc. #10 at 2.)

Defendant further argues that there is nothing in the grievances attached to his response that

show that the Plaintiff actually submitted the grievances to anyone and/or that they were

rejected because the issues set forth in the grievances are not grievable. (Id.) Defendant

argues that the credible evidence—Fisher’s affidavit—shows that Plaintiff, like all inmates,

had access to the grievance system for issues related to an inmate’s conditions of

confinement. (Id. at 2-3.)

Defendant also argues that these two grievances would have been untimely. (Id. at

3.) Defendant asserts that Exhibit A does not state the exact incident Plaintiff is grieving or

the date it occurred. In Exhibit B, Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to overcrowding

when he was arrested in August 2008 and then again when he was arrested on or about April

24, 2009; but Exhibit B is dated May 17, 2009, so Plaintiff was allegedly grieving issues that

were almost ten months old and approximately 20 days old, respectively. Defendant argues

that under MCSO policy, an inmate is to submit a grievance on the issue he or she is grieving

within 48 hours of the event being grieved. (Id., Doc. #7 ¶ 7(a).) According to Defendant,

the grievances attached by Plaintiff, even if they were submitted, would not have been within

the 48-hour deadline set forth in MCSO policy. 

Defendant further argues thatPlaintiff’s attempt to access the grievance system almost

three months after he filed his civil rights complaint does not satisfy the requirements of the

PLRA, which requires exhaustion before filing suit. (Id. at 4.) Defendant also disputes

Hillyer and Hosrtman’s version of events regarding Officer Negbee; Negbee asserts that

during a conversation he had with Plaintiff, Plaintiff asked Negbee what would happen if

Plaintiff decided to grieve issues regarding overcrowding and food necessities. (Id. at 5,

Negbee Decl. ¶ 5.) Negbee attests that he discussed the issues with Plaintiff and that he

sometimes explains to inmates that an issue is unlikely to be resolved in his favor, such as

the two-meals-a-day policy. (Negbee Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7.) Negbee further asserts that when he

Case 2:09-cv-01165-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/20/09 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 -

asked Plaintiff if he would like grievance forms, Plaintiff declined. (Id. ¶ 5.)

C. Analysis

The Court will grant the motion as to the claim for overcrowding and deny it as to the

claim for meals. 

Defendant provides evidence of the existence of a grievance procedure and that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his remedies under it. Plaintiff responds with evidence that he was

advised that the particular matters were not grievable. As to the claim for overcrowding in

the holding cells, Plaintiff’s own evidence shows that his grievance attempts were untimely

under the MCSO grievance policy. Filing a untimely grievance is not proper exhaustion.

See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 92. 

As to the grievance about the amount and quality of the food, both inmate statements

regarding Plaintiff’s May 17 attempt to file a grievance are labeled “Unsworn Declaration,”

but Plaintiff refers to them as sworn, and the pre-printed language states “I declare . . . under

penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” (Doc. #9 at 3, Exs. C-G.) The

Court finds Plaintiff’s evidence somewhat contrived—the inmate statements purport to have

been made within two days of the attempt to file the grievances rather than at the time of

opposition to the motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the burden to establish failure to exhaust

is on Defendant, and Defendant does not claim that Sullivan and Hillyer were not jailed with

Plaintiff during the relevant time period, and Defendant provides no evidence that other

inmates filed grievances on this issue. Furthermore, the Court finds that no specific date

would be required if Plaintiff is complaining about a policy that would affect him on a daily

basis; therefore, the Court rejects Defendant’s argument that the grievance was outside the

time frame. 

The Court will grant Defendant’s motion in part and dismiss without prejudice the

claim of overcrowding in the holding cells. The Court will deny the motion as to the claims

in Count I.

IT IS ORDERED:

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

Case 2:09-cv-01165-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/20/09 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 -

to Dismiss (Doc. #7). 

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #7) is granted as to the claims in Count

II and denied in all other respects.

(3) The claims in Count II are dismissed without prejudice.

(4) The remaining claims are those in Count I.

DATED this 17th day of November, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01165-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/20/09 Page 6 of 6