Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01287/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01287-2/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

JDN

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Saul Beltran-Ojeda, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John Doe, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-1287-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Saul Beltran-Ojeda brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Dr. Richard Friedman (Doc. 10). Before

the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16), which Plaintiff opposes (Doc. 18).

The Court will deny the motion without prejudice.

I. Background

In Count I of his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that his Fourteenth

Amendment rights were violated when he contracted hepatitis C during his confinement in

the Fourth Avenue Jail (Doc. 10 at 3). Plaintiff claimed that he was forced to use unsanitary

hair and nail clippers despite requests to change the policy. According to Plaintiff, Arpaio

was deliberately indifferent to unsafe conditions of confinement and, as a result, Plaintiff

contracted hepatitis C (id.).

In Count II, Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Friedman violated his Fourteenth Amendment

rights when he failed to treat Plaintiff’s hepatitis C symptoms (id. at 4).

Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that he failed to

Case 2:12-cv-01287-SPL-JZB Document 23 Filed 07/17/13 Page 1 of 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

1

Defendants also move to dismiss for failure to serve Arpaio (Doc. 16 at 1, 3-4).

Service on Arpaio has since been executed, and this ground for dismissal is moot (see Doc.

19).

- 2 -

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

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (Doc. 16).1

II. Exhaustion 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. There can be no absence of exhaustion unless a defendant demonstrates that

applicable relief remained available in the grievance process. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d

926, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2005). 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. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. And when considering disputed issues of fact,

a court has broad discretion as to the method used in resolving the dispute because “there is

no right of jury trial” as to an issue arising in a pre-answer motion. 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. 

III. Parties’ Contentions

A. Defendants’ Motion

In support of their motion, Defendants submit the affidavit of Lourdes Hernandez, a

Case 2:12-cv-01287-SPL-JZB Document 23 Filed 07/17/13 Page 2 of 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

2

The Court issued the Notice required under Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 n. 14, which

informed Plaintiff of his obligation to respond and the evidence necessary to successfully

rebut Defendants’ contentions (Doc. 17). 

- 3 -

Sergeant assigned to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) Inmate Hearing Unit

(Doc. 16, Ex. A, Hernandez Aff. ¶ 1). She states that the inmate grievance procedures are

set forth in MCSO Policy DJ-3 and that inmates are notified of the grievance procedures

when they receive the “MCSO Rules and Regulations for Inmates” (id. ¶¶ 3-4). Hernandez

explains that the grievance procedure is a three-tiered system that includes: (1) the initial

grievance and decision by the Bureau Hearing Officer; (2) the Institutional appeal, and (3)

the External appeal (id. ¶ 4). Hernandez further states that the Inmate Grievance Form, a

copy of which is attached to her affidavit, contains the standard language that explains the

steps in the grievance process (id. ¶ 5, Attach. 3). 

Hernandez avers that she reviewed the inmate grievance records for Plaintiff and

found that during his incarceration at the jail, he filed 22 grievances, 20 of which pertained

to medical care (id. ¶¶ 6-7). Hernandez states that the records reflect Plaintiff exhausted just

one of these grievances—Grievance #2012-11048 (id. ¶ 8). She states that the exhausted

grievance did not pertain to either of the claims raised in this action (id.).

In their motion, Defendants rely on this evidence to argue that Plaintiff failed to

exhaust remedies for his claims, and they contend that the action should be dismissed with

prejudice because Plaintiff cannot cure the defects in his case (Doc. 16 at 7).

B. Plaintiff’s Response2

In his response, Plaintiff asserts that he exhausted all available administrative

remedies (Doc. 18 at 1). He states that he began to submit grievances in May 2012, and that

in addition to grievances, he submitted Inmate Institutional Grievance Appeals forms (id. at

2). Plaintiff avers that because he was not satisfied with the appeal responses, he indicated

on the forms that the appeals were to be forwarded to the External Referee (id. at 2-3).

Plaintiff explains that after 6 months of pleading for treatment through Health Needs

Requests (HNRs) and grievances, he received a liver biopsy (id.). He states that following

Case 2:12-cv-01287-SPL-JZB Document 23 Filed 07/17/13 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

the biopsy, he again was refused medical attention, so he then exhausted the grievance

system by submitting an Institutional appeal and an External appeal (id., ref. to Grievance

#2012-11048). Plaintiff relies on the External Referee’s response, which outlines all the

medical care Plaintiff received at the jail beginning in January 2012, to argue that his appeal

related to his hepatitis C issues and served to exhaust remedies for his claims (id. at 4, 7-8).

Plaintiff alleges that jail officials violated the grievance procedure, in part because the

same official appears to sign the HNRs, inmate grievances, and the Institutional appeals (id.

at 5). He further alleges that Defendants provide incorrect information regarding the

procedure for a medical grievance (id. at 6). According to Plaintiff, medical grievance

procedures are not as Hernandez states in her affidavit, nor are the procedures properly

explained by defense counsel in the Motion to Dismiss (id.). Plaintiff also notes that the

Inmate Grievance Form attached to Hernandez’s affidavit is an outdated form (id. at 6, ref.

to Doc. 16, Ex. A, Attach. 3). 

Plaintiff attaches to his response copies of numerous inmate grievance forms (Doc.

18 at 30-35, 40-42), Institutional appeal forms (id. at 36-39, 43), and his External appeal for

Grievance #2012-11048 and the response thereto (id. at 44-47).

C. Defendants’ Reply

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s exhausted grievance—Grievance #2012-

11048—pertains to Plaintiff’s complaint about pain following his liver biopsy and does not

concern the claims underlying his lawsuit; namely, how he contracted hepatitis C and the

failure to treat his condition (Doc. 20 at 2). They also assert that Plaintiff did not submit

Grievance #2012-11048 until October 15, 2012, which was months after he initiated this

lawsuit on June 15, 2012 (id.). According to Defendants, although Plaintiff’s grievance was

exhausted before the Second Amended Complaint was filed, the relevant inquiry is whether

the grievance was exhausted prior to the date the lawsuit was initially filed (id.). They

conclude that because Plaintiff’s grievance was not exhausted at the time this lawsuit was

started, the action must be dismissed (id.).

Case 2:12-cv-01287-SPL-JZB Document 23 Filed 07/17/13 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

IV. Analysis

As stated, Defendants must demonstrate that there were remedies available to

Plaintiff. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119; see also Brown, 422 F.3d at 936-37. Relevant

evidence showing the available remedies includes “regulations,” “other official directives

that explain the scope of the administrative review process[,]” and “documentary or

testimonial evidence from prison officials who administer the review process.” Brown, 422

F.3d at 937. If Defendants fail to submit adequate and complete documents to establish what

remedies were available, they cannot satisfy their burden on exhaustion. See Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1120 & n. 15 (vacating and remanding for development of the record where the

documents produced by the defendants were inadequate to establish failure to exhaust). 

In their reply, Defendants do not respond to and do not rebut Plaintiff’s claims that

they failed to provide the correct information regarding the medical grievance procedure

available at the jail (see Doc. 18 at 6). Indeed, Defendants present different versions of the

available grievance procedure. In her affidavit, Hernandez, the Inmate Hearing Unit

Sergeant, explains the three steps in the regular grievance procedure, but she does not

describe the medical grievance procedure (Doc. 16, Ex. A, Hernandez Aff. ¶ 4). In the

Motion to Dismiss, defense counsel describes a lengthy procedure for submitting a medical

grievance: (1) submit a grievance form to detention personnel; (2) if unresolved, the

grievance is forwarded to the shift supervisor; (3) if still unresolved, the shift supervisor

forwards the grievance to a hearing officer; (4) if not satisfied, the inmate forwards the

grievance to the charge nurse; (5) if not resolved, the hearing officer forwards the grievance

to the nurse manager; (6) if not resolved by the nurse manager, the inmate may file an

Institutional Grievance appeal; and (7) if still not resolved, the inmate may file an External

Grievance appeal (Doc. 16 at 5). A shorter procedure for medical grievances is set forth in

the proffered copy of MCSO Policy DJ-3: (1) submit an inmate grievance form to an officer,

who forwards it to the Hearing Unit (id., Ex. A, Attach. 1 ¶ 2(A)(4)); (2) the Hearing Unit

forwards the grievance to the responsible charge nurse (id. ¶ 2(D)); (3) if unresolved by the

Case 2:12-cv-01287-SPL-JZB Document 23 Filed 07/17/13 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

charge nurse, the inmate may file an Institutional Grievance Appeal Form (id. ¶ 2(D)(3)); and

(4) if unresolved, the inmate may file an External Grievance Appeal Form (id. ¶ 4(A)(2)). 

On this record, it is unclear what the exact steps are for a medical grievance.

Defendants have therefore failed to satisfy the initial burden of demonstrating the procedure

that is available for an inmate to grieve a medical complaint. 

Further, as to Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s exhausted grievance does not

suffice because it was not exhausted prior to the date he initiated this lawsuit, they fail to

address whether Rhodes v. Robinson applies to either claim in Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint. 621 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2010) (if new claims arise after the original

Complaint is filed, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied with respect to these new claims

if they are exhausted prior to the filing of a supplement, amended complaint).

The Court will deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

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

Dismiss (Doc. 16).

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is denied without prejudice.

(3) Within 10 days from the date of this Order, Defendants must file either an Answer

or new motion to dismiss.

DATED this 17th day of July, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01287-SPL-JZB Document 23 Filed 07/17/13 Page 6 of 6