Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00117/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00117-8/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

Upon screening of the First Amended Complaint, the Court dismissed twelve CCA

officials and employees as Defendants (Doc. 17).

2

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of the First Amendment

and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and his state-law claims (Doc.

17).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond V. Gutierrez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Corrections Corp. of America, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0117-PHX-RCB (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Raymond V. Gutierrez brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) (Doc. 16).1

 Plaintiff’s claim arose during

his confinement at the La Palma Correctional Center (LPCC), a CCA facility in Eloy,

Arizona (Doc. 16). Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s broadcast of Protestant network

programming and failure to make any Catholic network programming available constituted

a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violation (Doc. 16).2

 

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20). The Court will grant

the motion and terminate the action. 

Case 2:10-cv-00117-RCB Document 43 Filed 07/18/11 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 -

I. Motion to Dismiss

A. Defendant’s Contentions

Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that he failed to

exhaust administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (id.). In support, Defendant submits the affidavit of Assistant Warden

Seidl, who explains the grievance process that is provided to California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) inmates, like Plaintiff, who are housed at LPCC (id.

at 2, Ex. A, Seidl Aff. ¶ 4). The grievance process is contained in LPCC Policy 14-101, and

it incorporates the time lines and requirements set forth in 15 California Code of Regulations

§ 3084 (id., Seidl Aff. ¶ 5; Ex. A-1 (Policy 14-101)). The grievance system consists of four

levels: (1) the inmate must submit an Informal Resolution Form within 15 days of the

incident being grieved; (2) if unsatisfied with the response, the inmate may file a Level One

formal grievance with the Grievance Coordinator, who keeps a log of all formal grievances;

(3) if not satisfied with the Level One response, the inmate may file a Level Two appeal to

the California Out-of-State Correctional Facility (COCF) Appeals Coordinator; and (4) if not

satisfied with that response, the inmate may submit a Level Three formal grievance to the

COCF Director (id. ¶ 10). Seidl attests that upon arrival at the LPCC, inmates are issued an

Inmate Orientation Handbook that summarizes the grievance procedures and they are given

a verbal explanation of the procedures during an Orientation Program (id. ¶ 6).

Attached to Seidl’s affidavit are copies of grievance documents showing that Plaintiff

submitted an informal resolution on June 22, 2010, in which he requested Catholic channel

programming (id. ¶ 15; Ex. A-2). On July 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Level One formal

grievance specifically asking that Eternal Television Word Network, a Catholic network, be

aired (id. ¶ 16; Ex. A-3). On August 6, 2010, Grievance Coordinator Williams screened

Plaintiff’s formal grievance and directed him to contact the Recreation Supervisor (id. ¶ 17;

Ex. A-4). In his response, Williams also informed Plaintiff that the cable network Plaintiff

requested was not part of the current cable package that the facility subscribed to and that it

would have to be requested at the time of cable package negotiations (id. ¶ 18; Ex. A-4).

Case 2:10-cv-00117-RCB Document 43 Filed 07/18/11 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 -

Seidl avers that there is no record that Plaintiff filed any appeal from this response (id. ¶ 19).

Defendant argues that in addition to failing to complete all levels of the grievance

process, Plaintiff’s grievance was untimely because it was not filed within 15 days of the

incident (id. at 7). Defendant notes that in his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged

that Defendant began airing the Protestant network on or about June 1, 2009, but Plaintiff did

not file his grievance on the issue until June 2010 (id.). Defendant further argues that

Plaintiff’s June 22, 2010 grievance came five months after he initiated this lawsuit and is

therefore improper (id.). For these reasons, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff failed to

comply with the PLRA exhaustion requirements and moves the Court to dismiss his claim

with prejudice (id. at 8).

B. Plaintiff’s Response

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

n. 14 (9th Cir. 2003), which informed Plaintiff of his obligation to respond and the evidence

necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s contentions (Doc. 21). This Notice was returned

in the mail with a notation that Plaintiff was no longer at the LPCC (Doc. 22). Plaintiff then

filed a Notice of Change of Address indicating that he had been transferred to a facility in

Tutwiler, Mississippi (Doc. 24). The Wyatt Notice was resent to Plaintiff’s new address

(Doc. 25), and Plaintiff was granted additional time to file his response (Doc. 28). In his

response, Plaintiff states that he did not receive a copy of the Court’s Notice that had been

returned undelivered but that he nonetheless submits his response (Doc. 36). 

Plaintiff asserts that while at the LPCC, he never attended an orientation, received an

Inmate Handbook, or signed documents indicating that he did (id. at 2). Plaintiff states that

LPCC prison officials failed to respond to his grievances (id.). He avers that he filed a

informal grievance to CO Meyers as directed, but there was no response or indication that

his grievance was deficient (id.). Plaintiff further avers that he submitted a formal grievance

to CO Williams, who did not respond timely, and his response told Plaintiff to write to

Meyers—who had already failed to respond to Plaintiff (id. at 2-3). 

Plaintiff submits that LPCC officials’ failure to follow the grievance policy and

Case 2:10-cv-00117-RCB Document 43 Filed 07/18/11 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 -

respond to grievances in a timely manner prevented him from exhausting his claim (id. at 3).

As to the timing of Plaintiff’s grievance attempts, Plaintiff explains that this action was

originally filed with a group of other inmates and that when his claim was separated, he filed

an in forma pauperis application and attempted to grievance his claim; however, LPCC

officials prevented exhaustion (id.).

C. Defendant’s Reply

In reply, Defendant maintains that every inmate receives orientation and a copy of the

Inmate Handbook (Doc. 37 at 2). Defendant nonetheless notes that Plaintiff transferred to

the LPCC from the Florence Correctional Center, another CCA facility that houses CDCR

inmates (id.). Defendant states that the grievance procedures for CDCR inmates are the same

at all CCA facilities (id. at 2-3). Defendant submits that affidavit of Ruth Williams,

Grievance Coordinator, who states that Plaintiff was housed at the Florence facility for three

years, and he acknowledged receipt of the Inmate Handbook by signing the “Receiving &

Discharge Checklist” in September 2007 (id., Attach., Williams Aff. ¶¶ 2, 5-7 & Ex. 1).

Williams also avers that prior to filing a complaint about religious television programming,

Plaintiff filed four informal resolution forms or formal grievance forms relating to various

issues, including inmate wages and medical charges (id. ¶ 10 & Ex. 2). Thus, Defendant

contends that Plaintiff was familiar with the applicable grievance procedures (id. at 3).

Defendant reiterates that Plaintiff did not appeal his formal grievance after it was

screened by Williams and, therefore, he failed to exhaust administrative remedies (id. at 4).

D. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response

Because Plaintiff indicated that he did not receive the Court’s Wyatt Notice before

filing his response, the Court permitted additional time for Plaintiff to submit a supplemental

response (Doc. 39).

In his supplemental response, Plaintiff repeats that he never received orientation at the

LPCC, and he asserts that he did not receive an Inmate Handbook while at the Florence

facility (Doc. 40 at 2). Plaintiff submits the same copies that Defendant submitted of his

informal resolution, his formal grievance, and William’s response/screening of the formal

Case 2:10-cv-00117-RCB Document 43 Filed 07/18/11 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

3

Plaintiff also alleges that he has been denied access to the courts because he is not

timely receiving court documents and his “priority legal user” requests at his current housing

facility are subject to delays (Doc. 40 at 1). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint did not

include an access-to-the-court claim, and Plaintiff was provided additional time to file

supplemental briefing on the exhaustion issue. Further, Plaintiff does not allege any actual

injury as a result of the alleged delays or denial of access. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

351 (1996). Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state an access-to-the-court claim.

- 5 -

grievances (id., Attachs.). Plaintiff restates that he attempted to grieve his claim; however,

Meyers never responded to his grievance (id. at 3). Plaintiff concludes that LPCC officials

did not follow grievance procedures and, in fact, CCA has since instituted a new grievance

policy and provides copies of grievance forms to inmates because there were so many

problems with the old policy (id.).3

E. Defendant’s Supplemental Reply

Defendant reargues its claim that Plaintiff previously acknowledged receipt of the

Inmate Handbook and he understood the grievance procedures (Doc. 41 at 3-4). Defendant

states that the grievance documents that Plaintiff submits fail to show that he took any steps

to appeal the response to his formal grievance (id. at 4).

II. Exhaustion

A. Legal Standard

Under the PLRA, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before

bringing a federal action. 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). 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, 315

F.3d at 1119. 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-

Case 2:10-cv-00117-RCB Document 43 Filed 07/18/11 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 -

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). If a court finds that the plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Wyatt, 315 F.3d

at 1120. 

B. Analysis

As stated, Defendant must demonstrate that there were remedies available to Plaintiff.

See id. at 1119; see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendant

submits evidence that the LPCC had established grievance procedures and that Plaintiff used

those procedures to complain about various issues (Doc. 20, Ex. A, Seidl Aff. ¶ 5; Doc. 37,

Attach., Williams Aff. ¶ 10).

Defendant’s evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff completed the first two steps of the

grievance process, but failed to file a Level Two appeal (Doc. 20, Ex. A, Seidl Aff. ¶ 19).

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff indicated that he submitted a request for

administrative relief and appealed it to the highest level (Doc. 16). But in his response and

supplemental response, Plaintiff makes no claim that he filed or that he attempted to file a

Level Two appeal after he received William’s response to his formal grievance. Plaintiff’s

general claims that LPCC officials refused to answer grievances and did not follow the

grievance procedures are insufficient to overcome Defendant’s evidence of an available

grievance system. 

Defendant’s evidence also demonstrates that Plaintiff did not submit his informal

resolution and formal grievance related to his claim until after this lawsuit was filed (see

Doc. 1, Compl. docketed Jan. 20, 2010). Plaintiff was required to complete administrative

remedies before submitting his Complaint to federal court. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d

1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006). Although Plaintiff’s amended pleading was filed after he

initiated the grievance procedures, his claim concerning religious broadcasting did not arise

between the time of the Complaint and First Amended Complaint; he specifically alleged that

it arose on or about June 1, 2009 (Doc. 16 at 4).

Case 2:10-cv-00117-RCB Document 43 Filed 07/18/11 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 -

On the record before the Court, Defendant has met its burden to show that remedies

were available to Plaintiff but that he failed to exhaust his claim. Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss will therefore be granted, and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed

without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

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

Dismiss (Doc. 20).

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is granted; Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed

without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment of dismissal and terminate the action.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00117-RCB Document 43 Filed 07/18/11 Page 7 of 7