Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01594/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01594-1/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 issued a Notice pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14

(9th Cir. 2003), advising Plaintiff of his obligation to respond. (Doc. 11.)

WO SVK

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald N. Jose, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Steven Williamson, et al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1594-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronald N. Jose, who is confined in the Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC)

of the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), filed a pro se civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Defendant Meiner moves to dismiss.1

 (Doc. 10.)

The motion is ready for ruling. (Docs. 13, 14.)

The Court will grant the motion and terminate the action.

I. Background

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that several SCC employees violated his rights

when they removed Plaintiff from general population (GP) and placed him in segregation for

44 days without a misconduct report. After 44 days, Defendant informed Plaintiff that in

order to return to GP, Plaintiff had to complete an 18-month Special Housing Incentive

Program (SHIP) for inmates considered to be management problems or dangerous security

Case 2:10-cv-01594-GMS Document 16 Filed 11/18/10 Page 1 of 7
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 -

threats. Plaintiff asserted that he was not a management or security problem and refused to

sign up for SHIP. Plaintiff was placed for an indefinite period in segregation, apparently in

SHIP, without disciplinary charges or a hearing. 

 On screening, the Court held that Plaintiff stated a due process claim against Meiner

and directed him to answer the claim against him and dismissed the remainder of the claims

and Defendants. (Doc. 5.)

Defendant now moves to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. (Doc. 10.) 

II. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

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 Juan Valenzuela (Doc.

10, Ex. 1, Valenzuela Aff.); CCA, Inmate/Resident Grievance Procedures (id., Attach. A),

Case 2:10-cv-01594-GMS Document 16 Filed 11/18/10 Page 2 of 7
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’s acknowledgment of receipt of Inmate Handbook (id., Attach. B); and the Inmate

Handbook (id., Attach. C).

 Valenzuela attests that his duties include maintaining all grievance records and the

Grievance Log. (Id., Ex. 1, Valenzuela Aff. ¶ 5.) The grievance procedure is a multi-tiered

system that includes: (1) the informal resolution process, which is initiated by submitting a

Request- for-Service form; (2) if the inmate is dissatisfied with the response to his Request

for Service, he may file an Informal Resolution form within 7 days of the incident

complained of; (3) within 5 days from the time he receives the decision of the facility

grievance officer, the inmate can submit a formal grievance; and (4) if dissatisfied with the

decision of the Grievance Coordinator, the inmate has 5 days to appeal to the Warden. The

Warden then has 15 days to respond to the appeal, and this response is final and constitutes

exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Id. ¶¶ 14-22.) Under the SCC grievance policy,

grievable matters include individual staff actions. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 30.) Valenzuela attests that

there are no grievances filed by Plaintiff regarding Defendant informing Plaintiff that he had

to complete the 18-month SHIP placement. (Id. ¶ 31.)

Defendant argues that the evidence shows that Plaintiff did not file grievances about

the claim against Defendant and, therefore, Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative

remedies. (Doc. 10 at 4.)

2. Plaintiff

In opposition, Plaintiff submits a two-page response. (Doc. 13.) He argues that the

Inmate Handbook states that classification issues and disciplinary hearings are non-grievable.

(Id. ¶ 2, ref. Doc. 10, Ex. C at 8.) He asserts that he was placed in disciplinary segregation

for two years and appealed his placement to the Warden. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff further asserts

that the Inmate Handbook excerpts explaining the grievance procedure do not contain

language that the inmate must both appeal to the Warden and grieve placement in

segregation; in other words, use two procedures. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff argues that because he

submitted his appeal to the Warden regarding the placement in segregation, the lack of a

Case 2:10-cv-01594-GMS Document 16 Filed 11/18/10 Page 3 of 7
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 -

disciplinary report, and recommendation for SHIP, prison officials were sufficiently aware

of the nature of the claim. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

Plaintiff does not submit a copy of his appeal to the warden.

3. Reply

Defendant replies that Plaintiff’s self-serving statements are unverified and

inadmissible. (Doc. 14 at 2.) He reasserts that individual staff actions are clearly grievable

under the grievance policy. (Id.) Defendant also asserts that if an inmate disagrees with the

information used to designate him for SHIP housing, the inmate must use the grievance

procedure appeal process and appeal to the Warden. (Id.) Defendant cites to the

Inmate/Resident Grievance Procedures, which state that non-grievable matters include

classification status and that “(all classification status must be addressed in accordance with

classification procedures in place at the facility).” (Doc. 10, Ex. 1, Attach. A at 4.)

Defendant also refers to the Inmate Handbook, which has a list of non-grievable matters,

including classification, and states with regard to classification “(must utilize the appeal

process).” (Id., Attach. C at 8.) Defendant submits the affidavit of Ben Griego, Assistant

Warden of SCC, who attests that the decision to place Plaintiff into SHIP is not an individual

decision, but rather a decision made by a committee, of which Defendant was only one

member. (Id., Ex. 1, Griego Aff. ¶ 13.) In addition, Griego attests that there were no

classification/housing appeals filed by Plaintiff regarding his SHIP placement. (Id., Ex. 1,

Griego Aff. ¶ 18.) Finally, Defendant asserts that as to Plaintiff’s argument that he need not

both grieve and appeal, in fact, the record shows that he did neither. (Doc. 14 at 3.)

C. Analysis

The Court will grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claim without

prejudice. Defendant presents evidence of an available appeal process and that Plaintiff

failed to use the process by appealing his placement to the Warden. Plaintiff fails to

adequately rebut Defendant’s evidence. 

Case 2:10-cv-01594-GMS Document 16 Filed 11/18/10 Page 4 of 7
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 -

Defendant provides evidence that grievances can be filed regarding individual staff

matters and submits the grievance procedure. In addition, Defendant asserts that

classification issues are non-grievable but can be addressed in accordance with the

procedures in place at the facility. (Doc. 10, Ex. 1, Attach. A at 4, Ex. C, Inmate Handbook

at 8.) Defendant provides evidence that Plaintiff did not use the grievance procedure and

argues that the matter should have been grieved as a staff action. But in his reply, Defendant

asserts that “SHIP placement is a housing/classification issue over which the facility has

control,” and he submits evidence that placement in SHIP housing was a classification

matter, not an individual staff action. (Doc. 14 at 2, id., Griego Aff. ¶ 14.) 

Defendant appears to be arguing that Plaintiff’s claim is that Defendant told Plaintiff

that he would be placed in SHIP and so a grievance could have been filed about that staff

action. But the Court finds that the gravamen of Plaintiff’s claim is his placement in SHIP,

not Defendant’s statement about that placement. On this record, the Court is unpersuaded

that Plaintiff was required to use the full grievance procedure because the grievance

procedure states that classification is non-grievable. 

Defendant must demonstrate that there were remedies available to Plaintiff. See

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119; see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936-37 (2005). Defendant

also provides evidence that classification can be appealed to the Warden. This was

apparently Plaintiff’s understanding; he claims that he did file such an appeal. But Defendant

submits evidence that Plaintiff did not appeal the classification, and Plaintiff does not provide

a copy of his appeal to the Warden. Moreover, Plaintiff does not state when he filed the

appeal or to whom he gave it; Plaintiff’s unsupported assertion that he filed an appeal is not

sufficient to rebut Defendant’s evidence that no such appeal was submitted. 

The Court notes that attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint is a “Disciplinary Appeal to the

Warden,” dated October 18, 2009. (Doc. 1, Ex. 3 E.) It is unclear if this appeal is the one

to which Plaintiff refers in his opposition, but it is the only one in the record. This appeal is

from charges of failure to follow verbal or posted rules. In the appeal, Plaintiff complains

that in October 2008, he was placed on pre-hearing detention without a timely disciplinary

Case 2:10-cv-01594-GMS Document 16 Filed 11/18/10 Page 5 of 7
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 -

report and without a timely hearing. He further states that “[s]ince then I have been harassed

and penalized for failing to participate in a program I was not required to take which

constitutes a violation. . . . Please remedy.” 

 When a prison’s grievance procedures do not specify the requisite level of factual

detail, “a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress

is sought.” Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009). This standard “advances

the primary purpose of a grievance: to notify the prison of a problem.” Id. And it is

consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Jones that a prison’s own procedures define

the contours of proper exhaustion. Id. Here, the appeal form requests the reasons for

appealing the disciplinary findings. (Doc. 1, Ex. 3 E.)

The Court finds that the disciplinary appeal of October 18, 2009, would not put prison

officials on notice of Plaintiff’s claim regarding placement in SHIP. First, the appeal is an

appeal from specific disciplinary charges, not classification. Next, the issues raised in the

appeal relate to the dismissed claims in the Complaint—pre-hearing detention—or possibly

some disciplinary charge filed later; in the appeal Plaintiff refers to pre-hearing detention

imposed in October 2008, but the appeal is dated October 2009. And third, the vague

complaint that Plaintiff has been “harassed and penalized” for not participating in a program

is insufficient to put prison officials on notice that Plaintiff objected to his placement in

SHIP; the appeal does not even mention SHIP. 

The Court will grant the motion and dismiss the claim against Meiner and will dismiss

Meiner. Because no claims remain, the Court will terminate the action.

IT IS ORDERED:

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

Dismiss (Doc. 10).

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is granted, the claim against Meiner

is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and Meiner

is dismissed. 

///

Case 2:10-cv-01594-GMS Document 16 Filed 11/18/10 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 -

(3) The action is terminated, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment

accordingly. 

DATED this 17th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01594-GMS Document 16 Filed 11/18/10 Page 7 of 7