Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00765/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00765-0/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

BL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rene Daniel Valles, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0765-PHX-DGC (VAM)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendant moved to dismiss

(Doc. #8) for lack of exhaustion. After careful review of these pleadings and the record, the

Court will grant Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Joseph M. Arpaio, alleging that his

constitutional rights were violated due to (1) overcrowding, (2) unsanitary conditions, and

(3) deliberate indifference to his medical needs (Doc. #1). Defendant Arpaio was ordered

to answer the Complaint, and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (Docs. ##3, 8). Attached to the motion were

(1) an affidavit of Sergeant Zelean Tademy, assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit, (2) the

Maricopa County Inmate Grievance Procedures, (3) the Maricopa County Rules and

Regulations for Inmates, and (4) a blank inmate grievance form (Doc. #8). 

In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting this Court order Defendants to provide

him a copies of all grievances he filed (Doc. #14). Defendant responded to the motion,

Case 2:06-cv-00765-DGC-VAM Document 18 Filed 10/12/06 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 -

attaching two grievances in which Plaintiff complained about not receiving a newspaper

(Doc. #15). Both grievances were resolved at or before the Shift Supervisor level (Id.).

II. Legal Standard

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner may

not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless all

available administrative remedies are exhausted. See Roles v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016, 1017

(9th Cir. 2006). Exhaustion is mandated “regardless of the relief offered through

administrative procedures.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). It is required in

all inmate suits regarding prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002). To be

“properly exhausted,” the prisoner “must complete the administrative review process in

accordance with the applicable rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit

in federal court.” Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 

 Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court considers exhaustion as a matter

of abatement in an unenumerated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) motion and “may

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. The 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). The proper

remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

III. Analysis

According to the documents attached to the Motion to Dismiss, an inmate should seek

to resolve a conflict through the Maricopa County Jail System’s Inmate Grievance

Procedures. Specifically, an inmate who wishes to file a grievance will be provided a

Grievance Form upon request, and must submit the form to a detention officer. The

unresolved grievance is forwarded to the shift Supervisor, and then to the Hearing Officer.

If the Hearing Officer is unable to resolve the grievance, the inmate may appeal his decision

Case 2:06-cv-00765-DGC-VAM Document 18 Filed 10/12/06 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 -

to the jail commander, whose decision may be appealed to an External Referee. The External

Referee’s decision is final.

For a medical grievance, the Hearing Officer forwards the complaint to the charge

nurse, who will respond to the inmate. The inmate may appeal the charge nurse’s decision

by filing an External Grievance Appeal, which is forwarded to the Contracted Health

Services Legal Liaison. The Legal Liaison’s decision is final. Tademy attested that (1) the

jail policies do not restrict the type of issue an inmate may grievance, and (2) Plaintiff filed

no grievances regarding the issues in his Complaint (Doc. #8, attached affidavit).

Defendant demonstrated that there existed a grievance procedure, to which Plaintiff

failed to avail himself. In his Complaint, Plaintiff indicated that a detention officer stated

that his request did not warrant a grievance (Doc. #1). Such a statement does not support a

conclusion that Plaintiff was “reliably informed” that there were no available remedies,

particularly when, as here, Plaintiff has used the grievance system in other instances. See

Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion

to Dismiss will be granted.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 8) is granted.

Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. The Clerk of Court

shall enter a judgment of dismissal accordingly.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00765-DGC-VAM Document 18 Filed 10/12/06 Page 3 of 3