Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02359/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02359-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Darryl Lebron Buggs, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2359-PHX-NVW

ORDER

The court has before it Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio's ("Defendant") Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. #10), Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #12),

Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #14), and

Plaintiff's initial complaint (Doc. #1). Defendant asserts that the court should dismiss the

case under Rule 12(b) because Plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative remedies prior

to filing suit in federal court. 

I. The Exhaustion Requirement

In 1996, Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("PLRA"),

requiring prisoners to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court.

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ("No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under

[42 U.S.C. § 1983] . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility

until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted."). Subsequently, the

Supreme Court held that the exhaustion requirement applies to all suits about prison life,

Case 2:04-cv-02359-NVW-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

whether they involve general conditions or isolated incidents, regardless of the alleged

wrong. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated

his constitutional rights by placing him in an overcrowded cell, which caused him to break

his hand. Doc. #1 at 6. Plaintiff's claim is about "prison life," and therefore, Plaintiff needs

to have exhausted all administrative remedies prior to bringing suit in federal court. 

 Defendants have the burden of proving that a plaintiff failed to exhaust all

administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In

addition, a decision that a plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative remedies results in a

dismissal of the claim without prejudice because the court's decision is not a decision on the

merits. Id. at 1119-1120. In reaching a decision, a district court may look beyond the

pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id.

II. Analysis

Defendant has the burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust all

administrative remedies. To satisfy this burden, Defendant has introduced evidence

establishing that a grievance procedure exists at the Maricopa County Jail, Doc. #10, Exhibit

1, that Plaintiff failed to submit a grievance for overcrowded conditions, Doc. #14, Exhibit

1, and that Plaintiff was aware of such a system, Doc. #10 at 3. 

Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to exhaust his claims, Doc.# 1 at 6, but instead

states that he did not seek administrative relief because he was "afraid of administrative

reprisals." Id. In addition, Plaintiff provides the court with five grievances that he filed with

the prison administration. Doc. #12. Of those five, the prison administration addressed two

of the grievances, leaving three unanswered. While futility is not an excuse to exhaustion,

if a prison official informs a prisoner that "he cannot file a grievance, the formal grievance

proceeding . . . was never 'available' . . . within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e." Brown

v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 937 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 113 (3d

Cir. 2002)). Likewise, the Brown court also stated that it "refuse[s] to interpret the PLRA

so narrowly as to . . . permit prison officials to exploit the exhaustion requirement through

indefinite delay in responding to grievances." Id. at n. 18. 

Case 2:04-cv-02359-NVW-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

However, Brown's language fails to help Plaintiff because he never filed a grievance

with a detention officer about the overcrowded prison conditions. By not filing a grievance

on this particular issue, Plaintiff failed to satisfy the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. The

fact that the detention officers failed to address all of Plaintiff's other grievances does not

relieve Plaintiff from having to exhaust this particular claim. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's 12(b) Motion to Dismiss for failure to

exhaust all administrative remedies (doc. #10) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk enter final judgment dismissing this action

without prejudice. The clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 11th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02359-NVW-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/12/05 Page 3 of 3