Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02022/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02022-0/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 1

 CO II Sanchez was dismissed upon screening (Doc. # 4 at 4).

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry R. Ratcliff, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2022-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13). The motion is fully

briefed (Doc. ## 18, 21). The Court will deny the motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the following employees of the

Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC): Former ADC Director Dora Schriro, Warden

John Palosaari, Deputy Warden K. Curran, Correctional Officer (CO) II J. Cruz, Captain

Yielding, and Deputy Warden Gerald Thompson. Plaintiff presented two grounds for relief.

In Count I, Plaintiff alleged that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when, without

provocation, Defendant Cruz entered Plaintiff’s cell, falsely accused Plaintiff of taking illegal

drugs, and assaulted Plaintiff to the extent that Plaintiff was transferred to the hospital for

treatment of his injuries (Doc. # 1 at 5).1

 In Count II, Plaintiff alleged that his Eighth

Amendment rights were violated because Defendants Schriro, Palosaari, Thompson, Curran,

and Yielding were aware of Defendant Cruz’s history of assaulting and abusing inmates and

Case 2:08-cv-02022-JWS Document 26 Filed 08/13/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

took no action to correct Defendant Cruz’s behavior (id. at 14). Plaintiff sought declaratory

and injunctive relief and money damages (id. at 17).

Defendants now move to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff failed to fully exhaust

his administrative remedies (Doc. # 13).

II. Exhaustion

A. Legal Standard

The PLRA provides that a prisoner may not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison

conditions under § 1983 unless all available administrative remedies have been exhausted.

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 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), regardless of the type of relief offered through the administrative process,

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

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007).

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-

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).

B. Parties’ Contentions

1. Defendants’ Motion

In support of their motion, Defendants submit the affidavit of Aurora Aguilar, ADC

Hearing Officer (Doc. # 13, Attach. 1, Aurora Aff. ¶ 1), with exhibits: ADC Department

Order (DO) 802 Inmate Grievance Procedure (id., Attach. 1, Ex. 1); and copies of Plaintiff’s

inmate letters, grievances, and responses thereto (id., Attach. 1, Ex. 2-7). 

Case 2:08-cv-02022-JWS Document 26 Filed 08/13/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Defendants contend that DO 802 provides a four-step standard-grievance process,

which is generally as follows: (1) an inmate must submit an inmate letter to his assigned

Correctional Officer (CO) III, attempting to informally resolve a complaint within 10 days

of the action that caused the complaint; (2) if the inmate is not satisfied with the response,

he may file a formal grievance to the Grievance Coordinator within 10 calendar days of

receipt of the response to the inmate letter; (3) if the inmate is not satisfied with that

response, he may file a grievance appeal to a higher official—the Deputy Warden or

Warden—within 10 calendar days of the receipt of the Coordinator’s response; and (4) if the

inmate is not satisfied with the response to his grievance appeal, he may appeal to the ADC

Director within 10 calendar days of receipt of the response from the Warden or Deputy

Warden (Doc. # 13, Attach. 1, Ex. 1). DO 802 states that inmates may use the grievance

process for issues relating to “property, staff, visitation, mail, food service, institutional

procedures, Department Written Instructions, program access, medical care, religion and

conditions of confinement” (id. at 802.01 § 1.1.1). Defendants further contend that the

grievance procedure detailed above is the same process an inmate must follow when filing

a grievance against a staff member (id. at 802.12). 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not appeal any inmate grievances to the Director’s

level claiming that Defendant Cruz falsely accused Plaintiff of swallowing illegal drugs and

assaulted Plaintiff to the extent that he was transferred to the hospital. Further, Defendants

contend that Plaintiff did not appeal any inmate grievances to the Director’s level claiming

that the remaining Defendants were aware of Defendant Cruz’s abusive history, failed to take

corrective action, and tacitly approved of such behavior (Doc. # 13 at 6). 

 2. Plaintiff’s Response

In response, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have allowed their subordinates to

disregard and ignore Plaintiff’s “properly submitted documents and the mandatory directives

and requirements of their administrative grievance system” (Doc. # 18 at 2). Plaintiff claims

that Defendants have submitted “false and fraudulent documents” to support their motion to

mislead and perpetuate a fraud on the Court. 

Case 2:08-cv-02022-JWS Document 26 Filed 08/13/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Plaintiff claims that he never received any assistance during the grievance process and

at no time did he ever receive notice that he had filed something improperly or untimely.

Rather, Plaintiff asserts that prison officials accepted his filings and failed to process them,

which rendered the process unavailable to Plaintiff (id. at 5).

With respect to his grievances, Plaintiff argues that he was required to comply with

the procedures for filing a “Staff Grievance” under the ADC’s grievance procedure, as

opposed to a “Standard Grievance” (id. at 8). A Staff Grievance is only a three-step process,

as opposed to the Standard Grievance’s four-step process, and includes an informal

resolution, a formal grievance to the Warden or Deputy Warden, and a grievance appeal to

the Director (id. at 9). 

Plaintiff asserts that he filed his informal resolution on August 19, 2008, two days

after the alleged assault (id. at 10). Plaintiff argues that Defendants had 10 working days to

respond to Plaintiff’s information resolution, but they failed to do so. Therefore, on

September 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed a formal grievance (id. at 11). Plaintiff alleges that this

formal grievance was not logged properly or forwarded to the Warden or Deputy Warden for

review and response pursuant to the grievance policy. Plaintiff claims that after he never

received a response to his formal grievance, he submitted a grievance appeal on October 13,

2008 (id.). Plaintiff acknowledges that he mistitled the grievance appeal; he should have

listed the Director as the recipient, but he addressed the grievance appeal to the Warden or

Deputy Warden. Plaintiff contends that he never received a response to this grievance

appeal, which inhibited Plaintiff from exhausting the administrative remedies at the prison.

Plaintiff states that he filed a grievance appeal to the Director on October 28, 2008, but never

received a response (id. at 12). 

Plaintiff then sent an inmate letter to Schriro on October 29, 2008, to inform her that

he never received a single response to any of his grievances (id. at 13). Plaintiff also assets

that he never received a response to this inmate letter, despite Defendants’ assertion that

Appeals Officer Cheryl Dosset responded to Plaintiff on November 7, 2008, telling Plaintiff

to file a grievance (id.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants fraudulently created and altered

Case 2:08-cv-02022-JWS Document 26 Filed 08/13/09 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

documents in support of their motion in order to mislead the Court (id. at 14-18). Plaintiff

concludes that because Defendants took no action on any of his grievances, he had no other

available administrative remedies (id. at 19-20)

3. Defendants’ Reply

In reply, Defendants shift the focus of their argument that Plaintiff failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies. Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff filed an inmate letter on

August 19, 2008, but they contend that Plaintiff did not provide sufficient information of

what he was seeking as a resolution, thereby rendering the inmate letter deficient under the

grievance policy (Doc. # 21 at 2). Defendants further acknowledge that Plaintiff went on to

the next step in the grievance procedure and filed a formal grievance on September 10, 2008.

Defendants complain, however, that Plaintiff’s formal grievance sought one million dollars

in damages, which is not an available resolution (id.). Defendants also confirm that Plaintiff

submitted an Inmate Grievance Appeal to the Warden or Deputy Warden on October 13,

2008. But Defendants argue that this grievance appeal focuses on Defendants’ failure to

respond to Plaintiff’s grievances and not the underlying assault (id. at 2-3). With respect to

Plaintiff’s October 28, 2008 grievance appeal to Schriro, Defendants maintain that this

appeal also focused on the failure to respond to Plaintiff’s grievances and not Plaintiff’s

underlying claims (id. at 3). 

Defendants assert that Plaintiff then filed an inmate letter to Schriro on October 29,

2008, complaining about ADC staff’s failure to respond to his grievances. Defendants

contend that Appeals Officer Cheryl Dosset responded to Plaintiff’s October 29, 2008 inmate

letter on November 7, 2008, informing Plaintiff that he can proceed to file a formal

grievance. Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not file a grievance pursuant to Dosset’s

November 7, 2008 response (id.). 

Defendants further contend that CO III Bruemmer responded to Plaintiff’s October

28, 2008 inmate letter, informing Plaintiff that a copy of his letter was sent to Cruz’s

supervisor who “redirected the officer in his behavior” (id.). Defendants maintain that

Plaintiff did not file an appeal to that response. As a result, Defendants contend that Plaintiff

Case 2:08-cv-02022-JWS Document 26 Filed 08/13/09 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

failed to properly exhaust his claims and they are ripe for dismissal.

IV. Analysis

As articulated above, Defendants have the burden of proving lack of exhaustion and

therefore must demonstrate that there were remedies available to Plaintiff. See Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1119; Brown, 422 F.3d at 936-37.

Plaintiff’s claim stems from an incident involving Cruz’s alleged use of excessive

force on August 17, 2008 (Doc. # 18, Ex. B, Inmate Letter Dated August 19, 2008). The

record reflects that Plaintiff filed: (1) an informal resolution on August 19, 2008; (2) a formal

grievance September 10, 2008; (3) a grievance appeal to the Warden or Deputy Warden on

October 13, 2008; and (4) a grievance appeal to the Director on October 28, 2008 (id.).

Defendants acknowledge the filing of these documents, see Doc. # 21 at 2, but contend that

Plaintiff “failed to properly request what he wanted ADC staff to do to resolve his issue of

excessive force[.] . . .” Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s grievances did not focus

on the alleged excessive force but on ADC staff’s failure to respond to his grievances.

Consequently, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed pursuant to

Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2009).

Defendants’ argument is unavailing because the Court has reviewed all of Plaintiff’s

grievances and finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alerted prison authorities to the nature of his

claim against Cruz and the other officers who allegedly knew he was a danger to inmates but

failed to take any corrective action. See Porter, 534 U.S. at 525 (purpose of exhaustion

requirement is to give officials “time and opportunity to address complaints internally before

allowing the initiation of a federal case”). For example, in Plaintiff’s September 10, 2008

grievance, Plaintiff specifically states that Cruz “knew [Plaintiff] could not defend [him]self

and still he continued to slam [his] head into the wall” (Doc. # 18, Ex. B). Plaintiff went on

to state that individuals knew about prior violent incidents involving Cruz and failed to

remove Cruz from the yard (id.). This is sufficient to “alert[] the prison of the nature of the

wrong for which redress is sought.” Griffin, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120. Additionally, Plaintiff’s

grievance appeal to Schriro contains similar statements that were sufficient to put Defendants

Case 2:08-cv-02022-JWS Document 26 Filed 08/13/09 Page 6 of 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

- 7 -

on notice as to the nature of Plaintiff’s claims. And while it is true that the grievance appeal

also mentions ADC staff’s failure to respond to any of his initial grievances, Defendants do

not provide any legal support for the conclusion that Plaintiff’s grievances are legally

insufficient because they included this additional complaint. 

Further, Plaintiff was never informed by any ADC official that his grievances or

appeals were procedurally improper. Consequently, Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff’s

requests for monetary relief in his grievances were improper is unavailing, particularly in

view of the requirement that Plaintiff use the grievance system even if he seeks a remedy that

is not available. See O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Center, 502 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007)

(“A prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies even when the prisoner’s suit seeks

monetary damages that are unavailable through the prison’s grievance process.”). 

The grievance procedure makes clear that an inmate may press on to the next step if

he does not receive a response to one of his grievances (Doc. # 13, Attach. 1, Ex. 1 at 802.07

§ 1.2.4). This is precisely what Plaintiff did. Instead of abandoning the grievance procedure,

he pressed on and fulfilled all of its requirements. Defendants have not provided a sound

basis to find otherwise. 

The Court also find Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff should have begun the

grievance process anew in response to Dossett’s November 7, 2008 response is unpersuasive

for two reasons. First, Dosset provides no discernable reason why Plaintiff should be forced

to begin the process again when he had just completed the process. Second, and more

importantly, Defendants have not adduced any evidence that Plaintiff received a copy of

Dosset’s response such that he had notice to begin the process anew.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has exhausted the claims presented in his Complaint, and

Defendants’ motion will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that:

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

to Dismiss (Doc. # 13). All other matters in this action remain with the Magistrate Judge for

disposition as appropriate.

Case 2:08-cv-02022-JWS Document 26 Filed 08/13/09 Page 7 of 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

- 8 -

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13) is denied. 

(3) Defendants must file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint within ten days of

the date of filing of this Order. 

DATED this 11th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02022-JWS Document 26 Filed 08/13/09 Page 8 of 8