Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02032/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02032-5/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

Plaintiff named two John Doe Officers in his First Amended Complaint but then 1

substituted Dubbs and Herrera (Doc. 14). 

Plaintiff also filed a sur-reply, which the Court struck upon Defendant’s motion 2

(Docs. 32-34).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Granville Lee Carroll, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2032-PHX-RCB (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Granville Lee Carroll brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Maricopa County Correctional Officers Jackson, A6203, Dubbs, and Herrera (Doc.

11). Defendants move to dismiss Count I of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on the 1

ground that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (PLRA) (Doc. 24). The motion is fully briefed (Docs. 26, 30). The Court will 2

grant the motion and dismiss Count I without prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claims stem from his incarceration at the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona (Doc. 11 at 1). Plaintiff alleged that on June 1, 2009, he was assaulted by several

other inmates (id. at 4). Plaintiff averred that Dubbs and Herrera watched the assault without

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 38 Filed 08/30/11 Page 1 of 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

Count II was dismissed for failure to state a claim (Doc. 12 at 6). Defendants 3

Maricopa County and Joe or Jane Doe (Medical Administrator) were also dismissed (id.).

Policy DJ-3 describesthe jail’s grievance process: (1) the inmate submits a grievance

4

form to a detention officer; (2) if the officer cannot resolve the issue, the grievance is

forwarded to the shift supervisor; (3) if the shift supervisor cannot resolve the problem, the

grievance is forwarded to the hearing officer; (4) the hearing officer’s decision may be

appealed to the jail commander via an Institutional Grievance Appeal; and (5) the jail

commander’s decision may be appealed to an External Referee by filing an External

Grievance Appeal (Doc. 24, Ex. A, Down Aff. ¶¶ 5-12). The External Referee’s decision

is final and concludes the grievance procedures (id. ¶ 13).

 Notice required under Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2003). 5

- 2 -

intervening or requesting help and then fled the pod, which resulted in Plaintiff sustaining

serious injuries (id., Count I). Plaintiff further alleged that Jackson and Officer A6203

placed him in disciplinary segregation for 28 days without following disciplinary procedures

(id. at 6, Count III). The Court ordered Dubbs and Herrera to answer Count I and Jackson

and A6203 to answer Count III (Doc. 12). Defendants Jackson and A6203 filed their 3

Answer (Doc. 21); Defendants Dubbs and Herrera filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24).

In their motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies for Count I as required by the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (id.). In support,

Defendants submit the affidavit of Sergeant Selethia L. Down (id., Ex. A). Down, a Sergeant

assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit, describes the jail’s grievance procedure, which is set

forth in Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy DJ-3. She further attests that her search 4

of the grievance records reflects that while Plaintiff did file fifteen grievances during his

Maricopa County incarceration, he did not file any grievances related to the claim that Dubbs

and Herrera failed to protect him from an inmate assault on June 1, 2009 (id., Ex. A, Down

Aff. ¶¶ 16-17). Down also attests all inmates are provided a copy of the MCSO Rules and

Regulations for Inmates, which detail the jail’s grievance procedure (id. ¶ 14).

The Court issued an Order informing Plaintiff of his obligation to respond and the

evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendants’ contentions (Doc. 25). In response, 5

Plaintiff argues he could not grieve his claim because of the injury he sustained to his left

hand (Doc. 26). Alternatively, Plaintiff asserts that exhaustion would have been futile

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 38 Filed 08/30/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

because the failure to protect had already occurred (id. at 2).

In their reply, Defendants maintain that Plaintiff was required to exhaust the jail’s

grievance procedure even if he thought the process was futile (Doc. 30). Further, Defendants

argue that Plaintiff’s claim that he could not file grievances because of his injured hand is

meritless because Plaintiff was able to fill out other forms during the same time period and

he provides no other evidence that relief was unavailable (id. at 2-3). Specifically,

Defendants introduce three inmate request forms that Plaintiff submitted on June 3, 4, and

12, respectively, requesting pain medication or treatment (id., Exs. 1-3). Defendants also

proffer an inmate grievance dated July 2, complaining about missing items he ordered from

the canteen (id., Ex. 5). Defendants also argue that Plaintiff provides no evidence that he

tried to file a late grievance or that he sought assistance from jail personnel to complete a

grievance form (Doc. 30 at 3). 

II. Exhaustion Legal Standard

Under the PLRA, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before

bringing a federal action concerning prison conditions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Griffin v.

Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). 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). And a

prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable

rules. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212 (2007). Thus,

the defendant bears 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 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).

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 38 Filed 08/30/11 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

III. Analysis

As stated, Defendants bear 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. Defendants maintain that Plaintiff failed to file any

grievances regarding his claim that Dubbs and Herrera failed to protect him from an inmate

assault on June 1, 2009. Plaintiff acknowledges that he failed to file any grievances

addressing this claim. Rather, Plaintiff states that he could not file grievances because of the

injury to his hand and, in any event, exhaustion would have been futile because the assault

had already taken place.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments unavailing because he does not explain how he

was able to submit medical request forms but not grievance forms. To the extent that

Plaintiff claims in his stricken sur-reply that he had assistance from other inmates with the

medical request forms, this still does not explain why he could not obtain assistance with

submitting a grievance. Nor does Plaintiff contend that he sought any assistance from an

officer to submit a grievance or attempt to submit a grievance when he became able to write.

In short, Plaintiff does not establish that he could not submit a grievance as to his failure to

protect claim. 

Plaintiff’s main argument, however, is that exhaustion would have been futile because

the constitutional violation had already occurred (Doc. 26 at 2-3; 32 at 2-4). This contention

has been squarely foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Porter. 534 U.S. at 523.

Exhaustion is required, even if an inmate believes the process to be futile. 

In short, Defendants have presented evidence that a grievance procedure was available

at the jail and Plaintiff failed to utilize it. Plaintiff provides no evidence that he could not

submit grievance forms when the record demonstrates that he was able to personally or with

assistance submit medical request forms. The Court therefore concludes that Defendants

have demonstrated that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available remedies with respect to his claim

that Dubbs and Herrera failed to protect him from an inmate assault. Count I and Defendants

Dubbs and Herrera will be dismissed. 

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 38 Filed 08/30/11 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED:

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

to Dismiss Count I (Doc. 24).

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count I is granted (Doc. 24).

(3) Count I and Defendants Dubbs and Herrera are dismissed without prejudice.

(4) The remaining claim is Count III against Jackson and A6203. 

Dated this 29 day of August, 2011. th

copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 38 Filed 08/30/11 Page 5 of 5