Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02523/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02523-0/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 LMH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George John Szkup, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2523-PHX-SMM (MEA)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a former county jail inmate, Defendants moved

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. ##10, 12). Plaintiff responded, Defendants replied,

and Plaintiff filed a sur-response (entitled “Response to Reply”) (Doc ##13, 16, 19). The

Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.

I. The Exhaustion Requirement

Plaintiff must first exhaust “available” administrative remedies before bringing this

action. 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). He must complete the

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable rules. See Ngo v.

Woodford, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 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). 

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

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Because exhaustion is a matter of

Case 2:05-cv-02523-SMM-MEA Document 20 Filed 09/29/06 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

1

Later, in their Reply, Defendants contend that Plaintiff admitted that he did not file

any grievances (Doc. #16). This assertion is unsupported in the record. Plaintiff alleged in

his Complaint that he did file grievances, and his Response refers to a grievance he claimed

to have filed (Doc. #1 at 4-6; Doc. #13 at 4). Neither party has submitted copies of

grievances, and it is unclear whether any exist.

- 2 -

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. 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).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff brought a Complaint regarding conditions in the Estrella and Madison Street

Jails (Doc. #1). For each of his three counts, Plaintiff alleged that he filed several grievances,

but none were returned to him (Id. at 4-6). The Court ordered Defendants Maricopa County

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Estrella Jail Commander Edward Cesolini to answer (Doc. #5).

Defendants moved to dismiss, contending that because Plaintiff did not pursue any

external grievance appeals, he did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement (Doc. #10 at 5 &

Tademy Aff. ¶ 4, Doc. #12). They do not admit whether Plaintiff filed any grievances at all,1

nor do they directly address what Plaintiff should have done when he did not receive any

responses. 

Defendants have, however, submitted a copy of the jail’s policy regarding grievances

(Attach. A, Doc. #10). According to the policy, the Maricopa County Jail’s grievance system

has three separate steps: (1) Detention Grievances, (2) an Institutional Grievance Appeal,

and (3) an External Grievance Appeal (Attach. A, Addendum to Policy DJ-3, Doc. #10). The

Detention Grievances step involves consideration by detention personnel, then a shift

supervisor, and finally a hearing officer (Id. at §§ 4, 6). The Institutional Grievance Appeal

is addressed by the jail commander (Id. at § 6-A). If not resolved, the inmate may then

appeal externally (Id. at § 6-A-2-b). At every step of the process, an inmate who does not

Case 2:05-cv-02523-SMM-MEA Document 20 Filed 09/29/06 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 -

receive a response may continue to the next step (Id. at§§ 4-A-3, 4-B-3, 6-A, 6-A-2, Doc.

##10). Plaintiff has not asserted that he was unaware of this policy. Thus, regardless which

part of the process had been completed, Plaintiff had an available remedy even though he did

not receive a response to his grievance. 

Plaintiff asserts that he could not complete the process because (1) he had been

transferred and (2) the jail’s process was futile (Doc. #13 at 3-4; Minnick Aff. ¶ 2, Ex. A,

Doc. #15; Doc. #19 at 1-2). The futility argument fails. Although Plaintiff gives several

examples of why the process is futile, he has not alleged how these circumstances affected

his own ability complete the grievance process (Doc. #13 at 3-4). More important, the

Supreme Court has found that futility is not an excuse. See Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n. 6 (“we

will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where

Congress has provided otherwise”). 

Plaintiff’s contention, however, that he could not complete the process because he was

transferred has not been rebutted. Defendants have not addressed this contention at all. They

have not, for example, submitted evidence indicating that Plaintiff should have completed

the process before his transfer. Defendants also have not submitted evidence from a jail

official, e.g., stating that the process is still available and that other inmates have filed

grievances after being transferred or released. As stated, Defendants bear the burden of

demonstrating the remedies that are “available.” See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119; Brown, 422

F.3d at 936-37. Information provided by the jail to the inmate is pertinent because “it

informs our determination” of what remedies are “available.” Brown, 422 F.3d at 937. As

Plaintiff points out, the jail’s policy does not address whether an inmate who has been

transferred to the state prison is able to continue to use the jail’s administrative process. In

a similar situation, at least one other court has found that the process was rendered

unavailable. See Bradley v. Washington, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2006 WL 2147606, at *4 (D.

D. C. Aug. 2, 2006) (denying motion to dismiss for lack of exhaustion where inmate was

transferred from jail to federal system, and jail’s grievance procedures made no provision for

submission of complaint for persons no longer detained in the jail). Because of the paucity

Case 2:05-cv-02523-SMM-MEA Document 20 Filed 09/29/06 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 -

of evidence, Defendants have not shown that the grievance process was available to Plaintiff

after his transfer to the state prison. For these reasons, the Court will deny Defendants’

motion.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #10) is denied without

prejudice.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02523-SMM-MEA Document 20 Filed 09/29/06 Page 4 of 4