Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08184/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08184-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

WO

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Eulandas J Flowers,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Sandra Lawrence, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-14-08184-PCT-JAT (ESW)

ORDER 

On April 25, 2016, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

on the issue of whether Plaintiff Eulandas J. Flowers failed to exhaust his available 

administrative remedies in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a) (2012) (the “PLRA”). (Doc. 109). The Court thereafter set for trial the issue of 

exhaustion, (Doc. 116), which was held on June 16, 17, and August 2, 2016. The Court 

hereby finds and concludes the following. 

I. Legal Standard 

 Under the PLRA, a prisoner must exhaust “available” administrative remedies 

before filing an action in federal court. 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). The 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 

required for all suits about prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002), 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 175 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 8
- 2 - 

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

regardless of the type of relief offered through the administrative process. Booth v. 

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). 

 The defendant bears the initial burden to show that there was an available 

administrative remedy and that the prisoner did not exhaust it. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 

1162, 1169, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014); see Brown, 422 F.3d at 936-37 (a defendant must 

demonstrate that applicable relief remained available in the grievance process). Once that 

showing is made, the burden shifts to the prisoner, who must either demonstrate that he, 

in fact, exhausted administrative remedies or “come forward with evidence showing that 

there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available 

administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. The 

ultimate burden, however, rests with the defendant. Id. 

II. Findings of Fact

 Prior to setting forth the findings of fact, the Court must reiterate exactly what the 

disputed issues of material fact were that necessitated a bench trial on the issue of 

exhaustion: (1) “whether Sergeant [(now Lieutenant) Jason] Johnson told Plaintiff that he 

could orally file an emergency grievance via videotape while Plaintiff was on defecation 

watch”; (2) “whether Plaintiff relied on that alleged assertion to believe that he was 

properly exhausting and did not need to follow the general grievance process”; and (3) 

“whether Plaintiff made such a recording of his grievances relating to his claims of 

assault and denial of medical care and necessities.” (Doc. 109 at 14 n.5). The Court will 

restrict its findings and conclusions to the disputed factual issues previously identified as 

material. 

The Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) provides a grievance 

procedure to all incarcerated inmates,1

including Plaintiff. This procedure permits 

inmates to bring to the attention of ADOC problems or complaints so that they may be 

 

1

 The record includes a copy of Department Order (DO) 802, Inmate Grievance 

Procedure, which governs the ADOC grievance policy. (Doc. 59-1 at 3-15.) 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 175 Filed 08/18/16 Page 2 of 8
- 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

investigated, substantiated, and resolved. The first step in resolving a complaint is, within 

ten workdays of the action which caused the complaint, for the inmate to discuss the issue 

with staff in the area most responsible for the complaint or through submission of an 

Informal Complaint Resolution Form. (DO 802.02, Id. at 5-6). If an inmate is unable to 

informally resolve the complaint, the inmate must submit the Informal Complaint 

Resolution form to the CO III in their unit; a response must be provided in 15 days. (Id.). 

If the inmate is dissatisfied with the response, he may submit a formal grievance. (Id. at 

6). 

 For non-medical claims, the inmate may file a formal grievance within five 

workdays from the receipt of the response to the Grievance Coordinator. (DO 802.03, Id.

at 6). Within 15 workdays, the Deputy Warden shall issue a written response to the 

inmate. (Id.). Within 5 workdays, the inmate may appeal the decision to the Warden. (DO 

802.04, Id. at 6-7). Within 20 workdays, the Warden shall issue a written response. (Id. at 

7.). Within 5 workdays from the Warden’s response, the inmate may appeal to the 

Director. (DO 802.05, Id. at 7). The decision of the Director is final and constitutes 

exhaustion of all remedies within the Department. (Id.).

 For medical grievances, the inmate may file a formal grievance if unable to 

resolve the complaint informally within five workdays from the response to the informal 

grievance. (DO 802.06, Id. at 7). Within fifteen workdays, the Facility Health 

Administrator must prepare a response to the grievance. (Id.). Within five workdays from 

the response, the inmate may appeal to the Director. (DO 802.07, Id. at 8). The decision 

of the Director is final and constitutes exhaustion of all remedies within the Department. 

(Id. at 9).

 From at least March 26, 2014, through April 21, 2014, Plaintiff was housed in the 

Kaibab Unit at ASPC-Winslow. On March 26, 2014, Plaintiff was assigned to defecation 

watch upon suspicion of possessing contraband. While on defecation watch, inmates are 

allowed no personal property and are required to eliminate in a container, rather than a 

toilet, so that whatever contraband they pass may be retrieved by staff. On April 5, 2014, 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 175 Filed 08/18/16 Page 3 of 8
- 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

Plaintiff was released from defecation watch and returned to regular maximum custody 

detention status. In maximum custody, inmates have access upon request to writing 

materials, golf style pencils, and standard forms, including inmate letters, informal 

resolutions, and inmate grievances.

 Nowhere in the ADOC regulations does it state that an individual may file an 

informal or formal grievance by utilizing a video camera or a prison facility’s closed 

circuit camera system. 

III. Analysis and Conclusions of Law 

As previously noted, the burden lies with Defendants to establish that Plaintiff 

failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit in federal court. 

Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. Plaintiff argument, as evinced from his testimony at the bench 

trial, is that Sgt. Johnson informed him that while he was on defecation watch, he could 

file a grievance by speaking into a video camera that had been installed in front of his cell 

window. Thus, Plaintiff contends, he was led to reasonably believe that he could comply 

with ADOC grievance procedures by “grieving” into the camera. The Court finds that 

Plaintiff is not a credible witness with respect to this issue.2

 Sgt. Johnson testified at trial that as of April 2014, he was a Correctional Officer 

(“CO”) II assigned to the Kaibab Unit and was working overtime as a floor officer. Sgt. 

Johnson further testified that he did not set up the video camera in front of Plaintiff’s cell, 

he did not have authority to set up the video camera, he did not order or ask any other CO 

to set up the video camera, and that once he was aware of the presence of the video 

camera, he did not tell Plaintiff anything about the purpose of the camera, and he did not 

tell Plaintiff that he could file any kind of grievance by speaking into the camera. Sgt. 

Johnson continued by testifying that it was Deputy Warden Sandra Lawrence who 

authorized the installation of the video camera, and that it was Lieutenant Vogel who was 

 

2

The rationale supporting the Court’s credibility finding is set forth infra. 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 175 Filed 08/18/16 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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

in physical possession of the camera and brought it to Plaintiff’s cell. The Court finds 

Sgt. Johnson’s testimony on this issue to be credible. The pertinent testimony was clear, 

direct, unequivocal, and unwavering. Furthermore, his testimony on the issue was 

corroborated by that of Deputy Warden Lawrence,3

 who directed Lt. Vogel to bring the 

camera and install it in front of Plaintiff’s cell.

 Plaintiff has failed to proffer evidence diminishing the veracity of Sgt. Johnson’s 

testimony on this central issue. No documentary evidence indicates that Sgt. Johnson 

informed Plaintiff that the video camera could be used to file a grievance. Sgt. Johnson 

denied under oath ever having told Plaintiff he could grieve via the video camera. None 

of the video footage4

contained any evidence to suggest Sgt. Johnson led Plaintiff to 

 

3

 The Court acknowledges that Deputy Warden Lawrence’s testimony does not 

align perfectly with Defendants’ stated position, that Plaintiff requested the video camera 

to document his situation. Deputy Warden Lawrence testified that she directed Lt. Vogel 

to bring the video camera to Plaintiff’s cell because “of the behavior that [Plaintiff] was 

exhibiting.” The Deputy Warden wanted to ensure that “there was no foul play” 

regarding the contraband Plaintiff may have had in his possession. This testimony 

suggests that it was the Deputy Warden, and not Plaintiff who orchestrated the 

deployment of the video camera. But the Court finds that her testimony does not conflict 

with the evidence, which showed Plaintiff—on multiple occasions—stating into the video 

camera that he had requested the video camera to document his situation. Plaintiff’s and 

the Deputy Warden’s motives were not in opposition to one another. It is therefore an 

eminently reasonable inference—supported by evidence—to find that the video camera 

would permit both Plaintiff to document his status, and the Deputy Warden to ensure the 

integrity of ADOC’s process to separate contraband from a prisoner who had been 

noncompliant. And with respect to the central issue—whether Sgt. Johnson ever led 

Plaintiff to reasonably believe that he could utilize the video camera to initiate a 

grievance—there is no discrepancy. All testimony and evidence provided by Defendants 

support their position that they never communicated to Plaintiff that he could grieve via 

the video camera in front of his cell.

4

The Court Ordered Plaintiff to identify in advance of the last day of the bench 

trial the portions of twenty-seven hours of recorded video that he believed supported his 

position. (Doc. 155). Plaintiff submitted a list of nineteen video excerpts totaling 

approximately one hour worth of footage. (Doc. 170). These nineteen video excerpts 

were viewed in Court on August 2, 2016. (Doc. 173).

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 175 Filed 08/18/16 Page 5 of 8
- 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

believe he could rely on “filing” a video grievance to comply with ADOC regulations.5

The record contains numerous formal and informal grievances filed by Plaintiff between 

April 15, 2014 and July 14, 2014, none of which discuss or even allude to a previous 

“video” grievance. CO III Christopher Spears6—a daily point of contact for Plaintiff 

through which he could initiate the grievance process—also testified that he had never 

heard of a video grievance, and that even when Plaintiff was on defecation watch, pencils 

and grievance forms were available to him.7

Plaintiff’s assertion thus rests on his own testimony, and as the Court previously 

noted, it does not find Plaintiff to be credible on the issue of whether Sgt. Johnson 

informed him that he could utilize the installed video camera to initiate the grievance 

process. The Court’s credibility finding rests in large part on contradictory statements 

made by Plaintiff in the video recordings viewed in Court. In the video recordings, on 

multiple occasions, Plaintiff explicitly stated that he asked for the video camera to be 

 

5

 Plaintiff asserted in a July 21, 2016, brief that the video footage turned over to 

him by Defendants did not include the video of his “initial” emergency grievance. (Doc. 

170). Plaintiff, however, did not assert that this allegedly missing video contained any 

evidence supporting his assertion that Sgt. Johnson informed Plaintiff that he could rely 

on the video camera in front of his cell to file a grievance and satisfy ADOC grievance 

regulations. Defendants have denied its existence, asserting that they turned over to 

Plaintiff all available video footage. 

6

 The Court finds CO III Spears to be a credible witness. This credibility finding is 

based on Spears’ consistent testimony through both direct and cross-examination at trial, 

in addition to his demeanor and disposition while on the stand. Disciplinary and 

Grievance Appeals Officer Cheryl Dossett, and Deputy Warden Lawrence also testified 

that they had never heard of or considered any kind of video grievance in their time with 

ADOC. 

7 Although ADOC regulations preclude inmates from possessing personal property 

while they are on defecation watch, CO III Spears testified that he was available to 

provide Plaintiff with the necessary paperwork and tools to file a grievance. Spears 

further testified as to the utility of the “golf pencils” he carried, noting that they were 

disposable. Plaintiff could have asked CO III Spears for a golf pencil and the forms, 

Spears would slide the pencil and paperwork to Plaintiff, and upon their return, simply 

dispose of the golf pencil.

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 175 Filed 08/18/16 Page 6 of 8
- 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

installed, and that he wanted the video camera installed to document his deteriorating 

situation for his family. This evidence stands in stark contrast to Plaintiff’s position 

throughout the proceedings, which was that Sgt. Johnson “told him that he was not 

allowed to have writing utensils and grievance forms during defecation watch, so he was 

to document his oral emergency grievance on video recording.” (Doc. 109 at 10). 

Plaintiff’s assertion is further undercut by CO III Spears’ credible testimony that he was 

available to give Plaintiff grievance forms and writing utensils while he was on 

defecation watch and by Sgt. Johnson’s credible testimony that he never told Plaintiff he 

could use the video camera to orally file a grievance. In light of these contradictions, 

Plaintiff’s credibility on the central issue is diminished significantly.

Moreover, there is a dearth of evidence to support Plaintiff’s contention. In the 

video recordings, there is no indication or even suggestion that Plaintiff had been led to 

believe that he could initiate a grievance by speaking into the camera. No testimonial or 

documentary evidence supports Plaintiff’s claims. Finally, Plaintiff acquitted himself 

very well throughout this matter. He possessed a firm grasp of both the facts of his case 

and the written law. He demonstrated the ability to present issues clearly and cogently, 

attack weaknesses in his opponents’ argument, and rely on specific portions of the record 

to support his position. His familiarity with the ADOC grievance process and his 

competence with documentary evidence and his own case suggest that he was well aware 

of the ADOC grievance process in place in April of 2014. For these reasons, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff was not a credible witness when he asserted that Sgt. Johnson 

reasonably led him to believe that he could comply with ADOC regulations and file a 

grievance via the video camera placed in front of his cell.8

 

8

 As the Court noted in its Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s 

summary judgment motion, the disputed issue of material fact was whether Sgt. Johnson 

led Plaintiff to believe he could file a video grievance. Even expanding the analysis to 

include every individual involved in the events that gave rise to this action, nothing 

suggests that Defendants informed Plaintiff that he could use the video camera to initiate 

a grievance.

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 175 Filed 08/18/16 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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

Having resolved the first disputed material fact in Defendants’ favor, the Court 

need not resolve the second and third disputed facts. Given the Court’s negative 

credibility determination with respect to Plaintiff, and in light of evidence proffered by 

Defendants, the Court finds that Defendants have carried their burden and demonstrated 

by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff failed to comply with the PLRA, 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendants produced evidence that there was an available 

administrative remedy and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust it. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate either that he exhausted, or that the existing and 

generally available administrative remedies were “effectively unavailable to him.” Id. 

 Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor, and the case will be dismissed. 

V. Conclusion

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that on the issue of Plaintiff’s exhaustion of available 

administrative remedies, the Court finds in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in 

favor of Defendants and terminate this case. 

Dated this 17th day of August, 2016.

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 175 Filed 08/18/16 Page 8 of 8