Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01760/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01760-2/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

WO LMH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raul Roy Berlanga, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1760-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

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

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #13). Plaintiff responded, and Defendants replied

(Doc ##16-17). The Court will grant the motion to dismiss.

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

abatement in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, a court may look beyond the pleadings to

Case 2:05-cv-01760-MHM-ECV Document 20 Filed 10/03/06 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

- 2 -

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

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint with leave to amend and ordered

service of his First Amended Complaint upon Maricopa County and its sheriff, Joseph

Arpaio (Doc. ##7, 9). Plaintiff alleged that he was denied medical treatment when jail staff

took away a brace and wrappings for his broken hand (Count I), and that the conditions of

the jail were unsafe and unhealthy (Count II) (Doc. #8). He asserted that he filed a grievance

for Count I but was “denied [the] ability to submit [an] appeal by MCSO staff” (Id. at 4, Doc.

#8). For Count II, he alleged that he “was denied by jail staff [the] ability to exhaust

administrative remedies when requested” (Id. at 5). 

Defendants Maricopa County and Sheriff Arpaio moved to dismiss, contending that

Plaintiff’s file did not contain copies of any grievances. In support, they submit the affidavit

of Zelean Tademy, a Hearing Officer for inmate grievances, who asserts that the grievance

records show that Plaintiff failed to file any grievances or appeals (Tademy Aff. ¶¶ 11-13,

Ex. A, Doc. #13). Tademy also asserts that jail policy requires detention officers to provide

inmates with forms when asked and that the officer routinely provide forms as part of their

duties (Id. ¶ 7 & Ex. 1 at 2, ¶ 4). Tademy further asserts that issues similar to Plaintiff’s are

routinely grieved (Id. ¶ 6). 

The Court issued the customary Order warning Plaintiff about his rights and

obligations to respond to the motion (Doc. #15). Plaintiff was specifically informed that if

Defendants showed that he failed to exhaust remedies, his Complaint would be dismissed

unless he produced his own affidavit or other evidence to show that he exhausted (Id. At 2).

Plaintiff filed a Response, contending that he was denied the necessary appeal forms when

he asked for them (Doc. #16). Notably, Plaintiff did not name the officers that he claims

denied him the forms, nor has he specifically described when these denials occurred or

Case 2:05-cv-01760-MHM-ECV Document 20 Filed 10/03/06 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 -

exactly what transpired. He merely claims that there have been other incidents in the past

when inmates have not been given forms (Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff also did not submit a copy of

the grievance that he alleged that he had filed regarding for Count I. 

On this record, Plaintiff has not sufficiently rebutted Defendants’ evidence that the

grievance process was available. Plaintiff failed to submit a copy of the grievance that he

claimed to have filed on Count I, and he failed to provide specific details about who denied

him appeal forms. The Court also is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s contention that other

inmates have been denied forms; the important question in this action is whether Plaintiff

was denied forms. On this record, it appears that Plaintiff choose to forgo the process and

create excuses later. 

Plaintiff further contends that because he is indigent and is now under the state

prison’s policy regarding access to the courts, he has had difficulty presenting his case, even

though he had the assistance of another prisoner. This contention is unavailing. Indigent

persons do not have the right to legal assistance in bringing a civil rights action. Plaintiff’s

right of access to the courts extends only to his ability to bring a lawsuit challenging

conditions of confinement, not to litigate effectively once in court. See Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343, 354 (1996). Accordingly, his contention provides no basis to forgo the exhaustion

requirement.

III. Motion for Production

Plaintiff recently filed a motion seeking production of medical records (Doc. #19).

Besides being procedurally improper, the motion is rendered moot by the Court’s decision.

It will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order for

Production of Medical Records (Doc. #19) is withdrawn. The motion is denied.

Case 2:05-cv-01760-MHM-ECV Document 20 Filed 10/03/06 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 -

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #13) is granted, and Plaintiff’s action is

dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01760-MHM-ECV Document 20 Filed 10/03/06 Page 4 of 4