Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00485/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00485-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Dominic T. Brooks, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

State of Hawaii, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-0485-PHX-RCB (BSB) 

 O R D E R 

 Plaintiff brought this civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees 

of the Saguaro Correctional facility in Eloy, Arizona, the Corrections Corporation of 

America and other defendants. (Doc. 15, First Amend. Compl. (FAC).) Defendants 

Griego and Thomas have filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of exhaustion, which 

Plaintiff opposes.1

 (Docs. 22, 24, 25.2) 

 The Court will grant the Motion and terminate the action. 

I. Background 

On screening the FAC, the Court determined that Plaintiff stated a claim for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that he studies both the 

Christian and Muslim religions and voluntarily participated in the “life principle/faith pod 

program,” aka the Life Principles Community Program (LPCP), which is Christian-based 

 

1

 Plaintiff was advised pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120, n.14 

(9th Cir. 2003), of his obligation to respond and the requirements of his response. (Doc. 23.) 

2

 Plaintiff submits two responses. 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 28 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

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 

but accepts inmates of all faiths. He asked the program leader why the prison only 

offered a Christian-based program; Griego told him that the curriculum came from CCA, 

the program was voluntary, and Plaintiff could leave the program if he did not like it. 

The following day, Thomas told Plaintiff that he should stop asking questions or he 

would be removed from the program or put into segregation. Plaintiff then filed an 

inmate request inquiring as to why there were no faith-based programs for other religions. 

His unit manager responded to the inmate request, which was delivered by Griego, who 

told Plaintiff that he was being removed from the faith pod and that Plaintiff was lucky he 

was not being placed into segregation. Plaintiff then submitted an informal resolution 

form, claiming that his right to practice and study Islam was being hindered in the faith 

pod, that Griego had removed him from the pod, and that Griego and Thomas had 

threatened him. 

 Plaintiff was not satisfied with the grievance officer’s response and filed a 

grievance. While waiting for the response to his grievance, he met with Griego for an 

interview. Griego placed Plaintiff into segregation and charged him with hindering and 

failure-to-follow for attempting to provide false information and hindering the staff by 

lying. Plaintiff asserts that the charges stem from the contents of his grievance. Plaintiff 

was found guilty of the charges and, as a result, lost pay for six months and was placed in 

segregation for 60 days. Plaintiff appealed, and the hearing officer upheld the findings 

and penalty. Plaintiff submitted an appeal to Thomas, which Thomas denied. 

The Court directed Thomas and Griego to answer the retaliation claim in Count I 

and dismissed the remaining claims and defendants. (Doc. 19.) 

II. Exhaustion 

 A. Legal Standard

 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), an inmate must first exhaust 

“available” administrative remedies before bringing an 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 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 28 Filed 11/25/13 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

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). 

 The 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. 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. Discussion 

 1. Process

In support of their motion, Defendants submit the affidavit of Grievance 

Coordinator Valenzuela (Doc. 22, Ex. A) and attachments, including CCA Policy 14-5 

(id., Attach. A), excerpts from the Inmate Handbook (id., Attach. B), grievance 

documents (id., Attach. E-F), and a memorandum of December 3, 2012 (id., Attach. G). 

 Defendants provide evidence of a multi-level grievance process with time frames 

at each step, found in CCA Policy 14-5 and available in the Inmate Handbook, which is 

provided to the inmate when he arrives at the facility. (Valenzuela Aff. ¶¶ 8-9, 17-25.) 

Additionally, copies of the grievance policy are made available in the library and housing 

units. (Id. ¶ 9.) According to a September 8, 2008 memorandum, inmates are advised to 

attempt to resolve their problems informally, prior to filing a grievance; this is done by 

submitting a Request for Service at the Case Manager/Unit Manager level. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 

17.) If an inmate is not satisfied, he may attempt to resolve the issue by completing a 14-

5A Informal Resolution form, with a copy of the Request for Service attached, and 

submitting it to his Case Manager. (Id. ¶ 18.) 

 The Grievance Coordinator assigns a Case Manager to investigate the allegations. 

(Id. ¶ 20.) If the inmate is dissatisfied with the outcome of the informal resolution 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 28 Filed 11/25/13 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

process, he may file a formal grievance by filling out a 14-5B form with the Grievance 

Coordinator. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) The Grievance Coordinator investigates the complaint and 

renders a decision. (Id. ¶ 23.) The inmate has 5 days from the date he receives the 

decision to submit an appeal to the Warden. (Id. ¶ 24.) The Warden’s decision is final 

and results in the exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Id. ¶ 25.) 

 2. Plaintiff’s Grievances 

 Defendants contend that the Grievance Log, Plaintiff’s grievance file, and the 

Inmate Request Forms show that on October 31, 2012, Plaintiff submitted Informal 

Resolution #12-10-12 regarding his removal from the Faith Pod. (Valenzuela Aff. ¶¶ 33, 

34, Attach. E.) Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the response, and on November 19, 2012, 

submitted Formal Grievance #154-12 again, grieving his removal from the Faith Pod. 

Assistant Warden Bradley responded on November 21, 2012. (Id. ¶¶ 34, 36, Attach. F.) 

Plaintiff submits copies of the Inmate Request received on October 31, the Informal 

Resolution, and Grievance received on November 19. (Doc. 25, Exs. A-E.) The Appeal 

is not completed. (Id., Ex. E.) 

 Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to return or submit an appeal for Formal 

Grievance #154-12. (Valenzuela Aff. ¶ 38.) Valenzuela documented Plaintiff’s failure to 

return Formal Grievance #154-12 in a memorandum dated December 3, 2012, indicating 

that Plaintiff’s time to return case #154-12 was on November 26 and that Plaintiff instead 

chose to mail his packet to his lawyers before Saguaro could complete the process. (Id.) 

Plaintiff does not dispute this. 

 Plaintiff also submits an Inmate Request, dated December 1, 2012 and directed to 

Warden Thomas, complaining that he felt threatened by their conversation on October 23 

regarding the faith pod. (Doc. 25, Ex. J.) In addition, he submits a Disciplinary Report 

and Disciplinary Appeals to the Warden regarding the failure-to-follow charge. (Id., Exs. 

F-I, K.) 

 Plaintiff acknowledges that he completed the grievance process as far as the 

second step; then he was placed in segregation. (Doc. 25 at 1.) In his additional 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 28 Filed 11/25/13 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

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 

response, Plaintiff claims that because his grievances had resulted in disciplinary charges 

and due to fear of further retaliation, he pursued the appeal of his disciplinary charges. 

(Doc. 24 at 1-2.) 

 The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden to establish the availability 

of an administrative grievance procedure and Plaintiff’s failure to complete the grievance 

process for his retaliation claim. First, Plaintiff admits that he followed through on the 

grievance only to the second step. Thereafter, he filed disciplinary appeals. But under 

the grievance procedure, disciplinary appeals use a different appeal procedure from 

standard grievances. (Valenzuela Aff. ¶ 15.) The PLRA requires exhaustion in 

accordance with the applicable rules. See Ngo, 548 U.S. at 92. And the due process 

claim related to the disciplinary charges was dismissed on screening. (Doc. 19 at 7-10.) 

 Second, although Plaintiff suggests that he feared further retaliation, he asserted in 

his disciplinary appeals that he felt threatened by Defendants’ conduct and does not 

explain why he did not fear retaliation for making such allegations in the disciplinary 

appeal process. He also claims that he was placed into segregation and implies that he 

could not pursue the grievance appeal from there. But Defendants assert that the 

grievance procedure is available regardless of the housing assignment. Plaintiff does not, 

for example, claim that he requested forms and they were not provided or completed 

forms and they were refused. Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that 

the grievance process was, in fact, unavailable to him.3

 The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in 

accordance with the applicable procedure. Therefore, the Court will dismiss, without 

prejudice, Plaintiff’s remaining claim. 

/// 

/// 

 

3

 Plaintiff submits a sur-reply. (Doc. 27.) The Local Rules do not provide for a sur-reply. LRCiv 7.2. As to Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant failed to answer the 

FAC, the Court’s Order directed Defendants to answer or “otherwise respond by appropriate motion.” (Doc. 27 at 1; Doc. 19 at 12.) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is 

such an “appropriate motion.” 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 28 Filed 11/25/13 Page 5 of 6
- 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 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant 

Griego and Thomas’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22). 

 (2) Defendant Griego and Thomas’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) is granted. 

Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. The Clerk of 

Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

 DATED this 22nd day of November, 2013, 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 28 Filed 11/25/13 Page 6 of 6