Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03928/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03928-1/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 JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose A. Gatica, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3928-PHX-JAT (LOA)

ORDER

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

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #12). Plaintiff responded and Defendant replied

(Doc. ##17, 18). The Court will grant Defendant’s motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff sued Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and alleged that his constitutional rights were

violated by unsanitary and overcrowded conditions, inadequate outdoor recreation, and

insufficient food at the jail (Doc. #1). The Court ordered an answer, and Defendant filed a

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. ##10, 12).

In his motion, Defendant contended that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

(Doc. #12). In support, Defendant submitted the affidavit of Zelean Tademy, a Sergeant

assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit (Id., Ex. 1). Tademy attested that inmates are provided

a copy of the Rules and Regulations for Inmates, which describes the jail’s grievance

procedure (Tademy Aff. ¶ 7). Tademy further attested that the grievance policy does not

limit the type of grievances inmates may submit, and that officers pass out grievance forms

Case 2:05-cv-03928-JAT-LOA Document 21 Filed 02/13/07 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 -

as part of their daily duties (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10). According to the sheriff’s office records, Plaintiff

did not file any grievances during his confinement at the jail (Id. ¶¶ 15-16). Tademy avowed

that during Plaintiff’s confinement, from approximately April 1, 2005, to December 31,

2005, other inmates at the Durango Jail filed 250 grievances concerning unsanitary living

conditions, 97 grievances concerning inadequate recreation, and 209 grievances alleging

inadequate food (Id. ¶ 17). Also attached to the motion was a copy of the jail’s Inmate

Grievance Procedure, Policy DJ-3, and two pages from the Rules and Regulations for

Inmates (Exs. 1A, 1C, Doc. #12).

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

evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s contentions (Doc. #16). Plaintiff filed

a response and disputed Defendant’s claims that the grievance policy does not limit what

issues may be grieved and that officers regularly pass out grievance forms (Doc. #17).

Plaintiff asserted that officers repeatedly told him that his complaints were not grievable and

that they threatened to restrict privileges for the entire pod if Plaintiff continued to seek

grievance forms (Id. at 2). Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s contention regarding the

extraordinary number of grievances filed about the jail conditions support Plaintiff’s claims

that his constitutional rights were violated. With his response, Plaintiff submitted the

unsworn statements of two inmates who were housed at the jail during 2005 (Attachs., Doc.

#17). Both men stated that officers often told inmates that their claims were not grievable

and tore up grievances that inmates tried to submit (Id.).

In his reply, Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient evidence to

demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies (Doc. #18). Defendant further argued

that Plaintiff did not identify those officers that allegedly refused grievances. Plaintiff then

submitted the affidavits of two more former jail inmates who attested that officers told

inmates issues could not be grieved, tore up grievances, and threatened to lock down the

whole pod if inmates complained about the denial of grievance forms (Doc. #20).

II. Legal Standard

A prisoner must first exhaust “available” administrative remedies before bringing an

Case 2:05-cv-03928-JAT-LOA Document 21 Filed 02/13/07 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 -

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 Woodford v.

Ngo, 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). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, ___ U.S. ___, 2007 WL 135890,

at *8-*11 (Jan. 22, 2007). 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). 

III. Analysis

As stated, Defendant bears 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. The parties dispute whether Plaintiff was prevented from

using the jail’s grievance system because he was denied forms. See Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d

652, 656 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“If prison employees refuse to provide inmates with

those forms when requested, it is difficult to understand how the inmate has any available

remedies”); accord Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003); Miller v. Norris, 247

F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001). 

Defendant submitted evidence that detention officers are required to provide forms

upon request, and that during a period overlapping with Plaintiff’s confinement, inmates at

the jail submitted hundreds of grievances similar to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s evidence

has not successfully rebutted this showing that a grievance process was available. Plaintiff

failed to allege exactly what transpired when he attempted to grieve each of his claims. His

Case 2:05-cv-03928-JAT-LOA Document 21 Filed 02/13/07 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 -

allegations, and the affidavit testimony of other former jail inmates, do not name the officers

who allegedly refused grievances nor do they provide specific dates of these instances.

Without more specific allegations, Plaintiff cannot overcome Defendant’s evidence showing

that a grievance system was available at the jail for Plaintiff’s claims. 

In sum, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the inability to grieve his claims are

generalized and vague. The Court is persuaded by Defendant’s evidence that the grievance

process was available to Plaintiff and he failed to avail himself of that process. Accordingly,

Defendant’s motion will be granted and Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed without

prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #12) is granted.

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

shall enter a judgment of dismissal accordingly.

DATED this 12th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-03928-JAT-LOA Document 21 Filed 02/13/07 Page 4 of 4