Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03067/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03067-0/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 1

All other Defendants were dismissed from this action on April 13, 2005 (Doc. 3.)

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Azell Woods, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, Individually; Joseph

M. Arpaio, as Maricopa County Sheriff

for Maricopa County Sheriff's Office;

and the Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-3067-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Azell Woods was a prisoner in the custody of the Maricopa County

Sheriff who has filed a civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his

federal constitutional rights have been violated by an overcrowded jail that affords minimal

recreational opportunities. At issue is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Joseph M.

Arpaio and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (Doc. 8) and a motion to reconsider

filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 12).1

I. DISCUSSION

Defendants' motion to dismiss argues that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies before filing this suit, as he is required to do by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, which states,

"No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under Section 1983 of this title,

Case 2:04-cv-03067-SRB-LOA Document 18 Filed 01/25/06 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 -

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." The burden is on

Defendants to prove that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003); Smith v. Bayer, 64 Fed. Appx. 46, 47 (9th Cir.

2003) (citing Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120); Ervine v. Clarke, 64 Fed. Appx. 67 (9th Cir. 2003)

(citing Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120).

Defendants offer the affidavit of Sergeant Amy Grimm of the Maricopa County

Sheriff's Office ("MCSO"), which states that she has performed "a thorough search of the

inmate grievance records maintained by MCSO for inmate Azell Woods #D068985. The

record indicates that Mr. Woods has not filed any grievances during his custody at MCSO."

(Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B). Sergeant Grimm further testifies that a failure to file any

grievances constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss,

Ex. B). That affidavit is dated July 22, 2005. (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B).

Plaintiff responds that "[a]ll copies of grievances and attempts to resolve were

attached to the original complaint." This is not true, as the Complaint does not contain any

attachments.

After Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a

"Motion for Reconsideration" and a "Response to the affidavit submitted by Sergeant Amy

Grimm," to which was attached documentation concerning Plaintiff's alleged exhaustion of

the MCSO grievance process. Defendants did not respond.

The issue is whether the documentation supplied by Plaintiff is sufficient to overcome

Sergeant Grimm's affidavit and establish that he exhausted his administrative remedies before

commencing this action. Defendants attach to their Motion to Dismiss the MCSO "Policy

and Procedure" guidelines for "Inmate Grievance Procedure." (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex.

A ("Guidelines").)

The first step in that procedure is for the inmate to request a Grievance Form, which

he must do within 48 hours of the event that he is grieving. (Guidelines, at 2.) On the

Grievance Form, the inmate must propose a resolution to his grievance. (Guidelines, at 2.)

Case 2:04-cv-03067-SRB-LOA Document 18 Filed 01/25/06 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

2

The grievance documents attached to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration are not

separately number or lettered, so the Court will assign a number to them in the order that they

are attached to the motion. 

- 3 -

Plaintiff attaches to his Motion for Reconsideration an Inmate Grievance Form dated

December 3, 2004 in which he complained that the prison was violating his rights by failing

to comply with an order that "all pretrial detainees shall be feed [sic] in dining areas

seperated [sic] from their cells. 5B only has dining seating for twenty-four (24) in a fortyfive (45) man pod." (Pl.'s Mot. for Reconsideration, Ex. 32

.) Plaintiff proposed a resolution

to the alleged problem, and was informed by the Shift Supervisor that prison officials were

aware of the problem, and two new jails were being built to alleviate it. (Pl.'s Mot. for

Reconsideration, Ex. 3.)

Next, Plaintiff submitted two Inmate Institutional Grievance Appeal Forms, one on

December 7, 2004, and another the following day. (Pl.'s Mot. for Reconsideration, Ex. 1, 2.)

The appeal was denied, and Plaintiff then completed the External Grievance Appeal process.

(Pl.'s Mot. for Reconsideration, Ex. 8.) He received a document entitled "Response by the

External Referee Inmate Grievance Procedure," which found that his claim concerning the

dining area issue had "validity." (Pl.'s Mot. for Reconsideration, Ex. 8 at 5.) That document

also states, "This concludes the formal inmate grievance procedure. You may elect to file

a complaint with the federal district court." (Pl.'s Mot. for Reconsideration, Ex. 8 at 5.) 

The document was signed by an External Referee, but it is not dated. The only

evidence that might establish when the document was signed appears on the first page, where

it states that the "hearing date" was December 29, 2004, the day before Plaintiff filed his

Complaint with this Court. 

The date that this document was signed is crucial to the issue of exhaustion. If the

document was signed on December 29, 2004, then Plaintiff would have exhausted his

administrative remedies before he filed his Complaint. If the hearing occurred on December

29, 2004, but the document was not issued until after, exhaustion would not have occurred

prior to the initiation of this action, a fatal deficiency. Because Defendants have failed to

Case 2:04-cv-03067-SRB-LOA Document 18 Filed 01/25/06 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 -

provide any evidence that the document was not issued after December 29, 2004, the Court

will assume that the document was issued on the date of the hearing. As such, Plaintiff

exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the dining area issue prior to filing his

Complaint.

Plaintiff's Complaint contains three counts. The first relates to the dining area issue,

and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied with respect to that claim. 

The second count relates to the allegedly insufficient amount of recreation time that

Plaintiff receives, and the third count relates to the general overcrowding of the jail, and

makes specific mention of the allegedly unconstitutional practice of "triple-bunking."

Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that he has exhausted his administrative remedies

with respect to the remaining two counts of his Complaint, but of course, he does not have

the burden to do so. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120. Defendants cite a case for the proposition that

the burden is on Plaintiff to prove exhaustion, but inexplicably, that case is from the Tenth

Circuit.

Have Defendants met their burden of showing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies? Ordinarily, an affidavit like the one submitted by Sergeant Grimm

would be sufficient, but a close analysis of her affidavit reveals why her search did not turn

up any record of Plaintiff's grievances: she searched under the wrong inmate number. Her

affidavit states that she searched for "#D068985" but that is not Plaintiff's inmate number.

His number is "D068958," and it appears at the top of all of Plaintiff's Grievance Forms as

well as MCSO's responses to those documents.

Of course, it is possible that Sergeant Grimm performed a search of the correct inmate

number but simply typed it incorrectly on her affidavit. However, that possibility is

foreclosed by the fact that her search revealed no grievances filed by Plaintiff when he

clearly filed at least one.

Defendants have failed to meet their burden that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies.

Case 2:04-cv-03067-SRB-LOA Document 18 Filed 01/25/06 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 -

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Joseph M.

Arpaio and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (Doc. 8).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Motion for Reconsideration filed by

Plaintiff (Doc. 12).

DATED this 24th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-03067-SRB-LOA Document 18 Filed 01/25/06 Page 5 of 5