Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02564/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02564-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Michael Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2564-PHX-ROS (JM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, this case was referred to the Magistrate

Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. Pending before the Court

is a Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 6] filed by Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (hereinafter,

"Defendant"). For the reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the

District Court, after independent review of the record, grant the pending motion. 

Case 2:05-cv-02564-ROS-JR Document 12 Filed 05/31/06 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 - 2 -

A. Discussion

At the time of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims, he was jailed at the

Durango Jail in Phoenix, Arizona. On August 25, 2005, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he filed

pro se the above-titled civil rights action. He alleges that the jail is severely overcrowded, he

is exposed to unsanitary conditions, he receives an improper diet, and he is denied recreation.

On April 10, 2006, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense as to which defendants have the burden of

proof, and is properly raised in an "unenumerated" Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss rather than in

a motion for summary judgment. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).

In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the Court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. See id. at 1119-20.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA") amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e

to provide that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C.

§ 1983], 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." See 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This exhaustion requirement is mandatory and not merely directory. See

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted and those

remedies "need not meet federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" See

id. Exhaustion is a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether such

actions involve general conditions or particular episodes, whether they allege excessive force

Case 2:05-cv-02564-ROS-JR Document 12 Filed 05/31/06 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 -

or some other wrong, and even if they seek relief not available in grievance proceedings, such

as money damages. See id. at 988, 992; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

In this case, the Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not exhausted the Inmate

Grievance Procedure, Policy Number DJ-3 (attached to the Defendant's Motion as Exhibit 1A).

The Grievance Procedure describes three levels of redress. First, the inmate must submit a

Grievance Form to a detention officer for resolution by the officer, shift supervisor, or hearing

officer. Second, if an inmate decides to appeal, he is provided an Institutional Grievance

Appeal Form which is submitted to the jail commander. Third, if the inmate remains

dissatisfied, he is informed of the right to pursue an External Grievance Appeal to be decided

by an external referee. Inmate Grievance Procedure, ¶¶ 1-7. Only upon conclusion of this

procedure is the inmate permitted to file a complaint in the Federal District Court. Id., ¶ 8. 

Plaintiff claims that he filed four separate grievances raising the issues about which

he complains. He contends that Defendant failed to respond to these grievances, and that he is

therefore excused from his failure to exhaust his non-judicial remedies. Plaintiff's contention

does not survive an examination of the record.

Each of Plaintiff's alleged grievances is attached to Defendant's Reply in Support

of the Motion to Dismiss. The first of these, in which he complains about overpopulation of the

jail, was not appealed beyond the shift supervisor's action and was signed-off by Plaintiff as

informally resolved. Reply, Exhibit 1A. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the Defendant did

respond to this grievance and Plaintiff did not appeal. 

Case 2:05-cv-02564-ROS-JR Document 12 Filed 05/31/06 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 -

In his second grievance, Plaintiff complained about a lack of recreational

opportunities. No record exists that Plaintiff submitted such a grievance to any officer, shift

supervisor, or hearing officer. Id., Exhibit 2. The defense points out that the grievance forms

are distributed liberally and are recorded by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Motion to

Dismiss, Exhibit 1, ¶¶5-8. Plaintiff offers no information as to whom he allegedly submitted

this grievance or how he became aware that officials of the MCSO were not going to address

his claims. In light of his lack of candor (as established by his submission of the incomplete

copy of his first grievance), and failure to offer any facts which would suggest an alternate

interpretation, the Court finds that this grievance was never properly submitted. 

In his third grievance, Plaintiff complained that he was served outdated food and

was not fed often enough. Reply, Exhibit 3. Plaintiff never submitted this grievance; an inmate

by the name of James Allen did. Moreover, the MCSO record reflects that a response was

provided. 

The fourth grievance also raises dietary concerns. Id., Exhibit 4. While this

grievance reflects the officer action taken, it contains no indication that it was ever appealed.

Plaintiff has again failed to provide any allegations that could establish that he was prevented

or obstructed in his attempts to appeal this grievance.

There is no basis upon which the Court can find that Plaintiff exhausted all available

administrative remedies. The record reflects that one of his grievances was never submitted,

one of them was not even his, and the other two were never appealed. Plaintiff has offered

nothing to suggest otherwise. As such, the Defendant has satisfied his burden to establish that

Case 2:05-cv-02564-ROS-JR Document 12 Filed 05/31/06 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 -

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in relation to his claims. 42 U.S.C. §

1997(e)(a). 

B. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District

Court, after its independent review, issue an Order granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

[Docket No. 6], and dismissing this matter without prejudice. 

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of

this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the

objections. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 05-

2564-PHX-ROS. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the

Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the

issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 30th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02564-ROS-JR Document 12 Filed 05/31/06 Page 5 of 5