Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02252/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02252-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Francisco Cordova, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, individually and in

his officially capacity as Maricopa

County Sheriff, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2252-PHX-DGC (JI)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant ’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.

Doc. #8. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint on July 27, 2005, alleging Defendant

violated his civil rights while Plaintiff was detained at the Maricopa County Durango Jail.

Doc. #1. On August 5, 2005, t he Court ordered Defendant to answer Plaintiff’s allegation

that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to

overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions, and that his rights are violat ed because he

was not provided an adequate diet or recreational opportunities at the jail. Doc. #4.

 Defendant filed t he present motion to dismiss on October 20, 2005. Doc. #8.

Case 2:05-cv-02252-DGC-JRI Document 14 Filed 12/29/05 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 -

Defendant cont ends that the complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administ rative remedies by pursuing his claims

through the Maricopa County jail inmate grievance process prior to filing his § 1983

comp laint. Id. Plaintiff filed a response on December 2, 2005, stating that he did not

exhaust administrative remedies because he was prevented from doing so by jail officials.

Doc. #10. Defendants filed a rep ly t o Plaintiff’s response on December 12, 2005. Doc. #12.

Discussion

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform

Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This statute provides that “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 . . . by a prisoner confined

in any jail, p rison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2003 & Supp. 2005). An inmate must

exhaust available remedies “irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through

administrative avenues.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001). The exhaustion

requirement “applies to all inmate suits about p rison life, whether they involve general

circumstances or particular episodes.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense and Defendant has “ the burden of raising and

proving t he absence of exhaustion.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA is t reated as a matter in

abatement and is properly raised in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Id. “In deciding

a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the [C]ourt may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disp ut ed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. If the Court

concludes that Plaintiff “has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Id. at 1120.

The PLRA only requires that administrative remedies which are “available” to a

prisoner be exhausted prior to bringing suit . 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2003 & Supp. 2005).

Case 2:05-cv-02252-DGC-JRI Document 14 Filed 12/29/05 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 -

Because t he statute requires the remedy to be “available” to the prisoner, it is possible for

a prisoner to exhaust his administrative remedies without his claims being denied at the

highest level of administrative review specified by the relevant inmate grievance policies.

See Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that the dist rict court erred

by dismissing an inmat e’s § 1983 claim based on his failure to exhaust because the court

did not consider the inmate’s allegation that prison officials refused to provide him

grievance forms). Federal courts have held that “a remedy that prison officials prevent a

prisoner from ‘utilizing’ is not an ‘available’ remedy under § 1997e(a)[.]” Miller v. Norris,

247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (alteration omitted); see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926,

935 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The obligat ion t o exhaust ‘available’ remedies persists as long as some

remedy remains ‘available.’”) (emphasis in original).

B. Analysis.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies

because he did not pursue a grievance utilizing the Maricopa County jail inmate grievance

process regarding any of the claims stated in his § 1983 act ion prior to filing his complaint..

Doc. #8 at 4 & Exh. 1. In response to Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff did not pursue

administrative remedies, Plaintiff asserts in an unsworn statement that 

Plaintiff in good faith did attempt to pursue all levels of MCSO’s

administrative procedure beginning with a request for a grievance through

the detention officers. It is at this point, even t hough policy DJ-3 states

otherwise, that the Plaintiff is informed that his issues were non-greivable

and therefor exhausted his administrative remedies.(sic)

Doc. #10 at 3. 

 In his reply, Defendant notes that Plaintiff admits he did not exhaust his

administrative remedies and that Plaintiff presents no evidence or specific allegations

regarding whether administrative remedies were available to him. Doc. #12. 

Plaintiff has presented only unsworn, non-specific, rebutted averments that he was

told the issues complained of were not grievable. He does not assert t hat he attempted to

grieve his claims beyond an initial inquiry. The Court concludes t hat Plaintiff has failed to

exhaust administrative remedies available to him. See Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399, 399 (6t h

Case 2:05-cv-02252-DGC-JRI Document 14 Filed 12/29/05 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 -

Cir. 2001) (concluding that dismissal for failure to exhaust was proper because the plaintiff

failed to allege that the prison official who refused to provide a grievance form was the

only source of those forms or that plaintiff made other at t empts to obtain a form or file a

grievance without a form); Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (concluding

that section 1997e(a) does not permit the court to consider an inmate’s subjective beliefs

in determining whether administrative procedures are “available.”).

Conclusion

Plaintiff concedes that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies regarding the

claims stated in his section 1983 complaint, and Defendant has presented evidence to the

Court that administrative remedies were available to Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not present any

specific or circumstantial evidence indicating that administrative remedies were not

available. The complaint must be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to § 1997e because

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his section 1983 suit.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #10) is granted and

Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

DATED this 29th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02252-DGC-JRI Document 14 Filed 12/29/05 Page 4 of 4