Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03058/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03058-0/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

Roger Austin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 04-3058-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Durango county jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the overcrowded conditions in the

Maricopa County jail system have resulted in a violation of his constitutional rights.

Doc. #1. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his

administrative remedies as mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Doc. #10. 

I. Facts

The Maricop a County Sheriff’s office provides a multi-tiered administrative review

process for prisoner grievances. First, an inmate must submit a grievance form to a

det ent ion officer within 48-hours of the grieved event. Doc. #10, see policy DJ-3, Ex. A.

If the detention officer cannot resolve the issue, the grievance is forwarded to the shift

sup ervisor. Id. If the shift officer is unable to resolve the grievance, it is forwarded to a

hearing officer. Id. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the out come aft er t he hearing

officer’s review, he can file an institutional grievance with the jail commander. T he jail

commander is required to “provide a written resp onse to the inmate within seven calendar

Case 2:04-cv-03058-DGC-MEA Document 16 Filed 02/02/06 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 -

days from receip t of the appeal.” Id. “An inmate who has not received a response [from

the jail commander] within seven calendar day s may file an External Grievance Appeal.”

Id. Alternatively, the inmate may file an external grievance wit hin 24-hours of receiving

notice of the jail commander’s response. Id. Only after the inmate receives a resp onse and

written decision by the external referee is the process considered exhausted. Doc. #10.

On December 20, 2004, Plaintiff filed an institutional grievance appeal with the jail

commander. As noted above, the commander was obliged to respond within seven days.

When t he commander failed to respond within that time, Plaintiff was entitled to file an

external grievance, but did not do so. Plaintiff instead filed his federal complaint on

December 30, 2004. Doc. #1. The jail commander issued his written response to the

grievance on February 22, 2005, 64 days after receiving it. Doc. #10, Ex. B. Plaintiff was

transferred to another facility on February 28, 2005 without having seen the jail

commander’s response. Id. 

II. Legal Standard for Exhaustion

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), “[n]o action shall be brought with

resp ect t o p rison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by

a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a); see McKinney v. Carey, 311

F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002). The PLRA requires an inmate to exhaust all “available”

remedies “irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative

avenues.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001). 

Establishing exhaustion of administrative remedies under the PLRA is not a pleading

requirement or a jurisdictional prerequisite. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119

(9th Cir. 2003). Rather, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative

defense that defendants have the burden of raising and proving. Id. This defense is

properly raised in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. Id. 

Case 2:04-cv-03058-DGC-MEA Document 16 Filed 02/02/06 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 -

“In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies,

the [district] court may look beyond the p leading and decide disputed issues of fact.”

Id. at 1119-20. The district court should not “ read futility or other exceptions into statutory

exhaust ion requirements” where the statute provides for no such exceptions. Booth, 532

U.S. at 741 n.6. “If t he district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted

nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Wyatt,

315 F.3d at 1120.

III. Analysis

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when

he failed to file an external grievance ap p eal. Doc. #10. Plaintiff argues that because the

jail commander failed to respond to his grievance within seven days, his obligation to file

an external appeal was never triggered. Doc. #13. 

 The PLRA requires that all available remedies be exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Plaintiff filed his institutional appeal on December 20, 2004. Pursuant to Defendant’s

policy, Plaintiff could have filed an external grievance appeal anytime aft er December 27,

2004. See Doc. #10, Ex. A (“An inmate who has not received a response within seven

calendar days may file an External Grievance Appeal.”). The filing of an external grievance

appeal was thus an “available” remedy Plaintiff chose not to pursue. Plaintiff has not

shown that there was any interference by prison officials that rendered the external

grievance process unavailable. Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust “such administrative

remedies as are available,” Defendant’s mot ion to dismiss will be granted. 42

U.S.C. §1997e(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #10) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-03058-DGC-MEA Document 16 Filed 02/02/06 Page 3 of 3