Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-01874/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-01874-5/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

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Wayne Murray, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 01-1874-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Robert Wayne Murray is pursuing a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against

the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections Dora Schriro, the former Director

Terry Stewart, and Blaine Marshall in which he alleged a violation of his due process rights

in relation to his security classification (Count III) and religious discrimination (Count VIII)

(Doc. #78). Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s due process claim for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies (Doc. #132). The Court will grant the motion.

I. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his due process claim because

Plaintiff (1) never appealed a reclassification determination and (2) never challenged the

classification policies (Doc. #132). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, a prisoner may not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison conditions under 42

Case 2:01-cv-01874-SMM-LOA Document 153 Filed 07/13/07 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 -

U.S.C. § 1983, unless all available administrative remedies are exhausted. See Roles v.

Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016, 1017 (9th Cir.), cert denied 127 S.Ct. 232 (2006). Exhaustion is

mandated “regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures.” Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). It is required in all inmate suits regarding prison life.

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002). To be “properly exhausted,” the prisoner “must

complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable rules, including

deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct.

2378, 2384 (2006). 

 Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court considers exhaustion as a matter

of abatement in an unenumerated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) motion and “may

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. The 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). The proper

remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

II. Analysis

An inmate undergoes a reclassification determination every 180 days (Doc. #132, exs.

1-3). An inmate’s reclassification is based on a recommendation submitted by the

Institutional Classification staff to the Warden or Deputy Warden, who in turn submits a

recommendation to the Central Classification Staff for approval, modification, or denial (id.).

An inmate may appeal the Central Classification’s determination by submitting an inmate

letter to his Correctional Official IV (CO IV) addressed to the “Administrator, Bureau of

Offender Services” (id.). The CO IV evaluates the letter to determine its appealabilty and

then either returns the letter to the inmate for correction or forwards it to Central

Classification Offender Services Bureau (id.). The Administrator of Central Classification

reviews the letter and makes a determination (id.).

Case 2:01-cv-01874-SMM-LOA Document 153 Filed 07/13/07 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 -

An inmates may grieve institutional procedures and Department Written Instructions

by submitting a complaint to his assigned Correctional Official III (CO III), who should

investigate and attempt to resolve the complaint. The inmate may challenge the CO III’s

conclusion and resolution by submitting a formal Inmate Grievance to the Institution/Unit

Grievance Coordinator. The Grievance Coordinator’s decision may be appealed to the

Warden or Deputy Warden. If the Warden or Deputy Warden cannot resolve the grievance,

the inmate may appeal that decision to the Director. The Director’s response is final (Doc.

#96, ex A, attach. A). 

Defendants present affidavit and documentary evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff

underwent reclassification determinations in November 2000, January and October 2001, and

January 2002 (Doc. #132, exs. A, 4-9). Plaintiff failed to appeal any of these classifications

(id.). Plaintiff concedes that he did not appeal his reclassification determinations because

death row inmates cannot be classified lower than that determined at the reclassification

hearing (Doc. #142). Thus, Plaintiff argued that because he could not get any relief,

exhaustion was futile (id.). Plaintiff also conceded that he never filed a grievance

complaining about the policy, again arguing that his grievance would not have resulted in the

requested relief (id.). However, exhaustion is mandated “regardless of the relief offered

through administrative procedures.” Booth, 532 U.S. at 741. Plaintiff thus admittedly failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claim that his due process rights were

violated by his reclassification. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count III will

be granted. Plaintiff, however, will be permitted to proceed as to his claim against

Defendants for allegedly discriminating against him based on his choice of religion by not

allowing him to wear a turban (Count VIII) (Doc. #78). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) GRANTING Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #132) as to Plaintiff’s claim

that his due process rights were violated based on his classification. The claim is therefore

dismissed without prejudice.

Case 2:01-cv-01874-SMM-LOA Document 153 Filed 07/13/07 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) Plaintiff may proceed with his claim of religious discrimination.

DATED this 13th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:01-cv-01874-SMM-LOA Document 153 Filed 07/13/07 Page 4 of 4