Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03551/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03551-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 Count II and Counts IV through IX were dismissed without prejudice, as well as

Defendant Jane Doe. Plaintiff also named the unknown detention officer in Count I.

Plaintiff was instructed to amend his Complaint to name that unknown Defendant.

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kyler Allen Bounds, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3551-PHX-MHM-ECV

ORDER

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

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. # 14). Plaintiff responded, and Defendant replied

(Doc. ## 17, 18, 21). The Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendant Joseph Arpaio alleging that

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated by (1) excessive force by an unknown detention

officer (Count I) and (2) overcrowded conditions and exposure to extreme temperatures in

the jail (Count III) (Doc. # 9 at 4, 6). Defendant Arpaio was ordered to answer these claims

(Doc. # 10).1

 Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit (Doc. # 14). In support of

his motion, Defendant submitted (1) an affidavit of Inmate Hearing Unit Sergeant Susan

Case 2:05-cv-03551-ROS-ECV Document 25 Filed 06/18/07 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 -

Fisher and (2) the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s Inmate Grievance Procedures (Doc.

# 14, Exs. 1, 2).

II. Parties’ Contentions

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint claiming that excessive force and exposure

to overcrowding and extreme temperature at the Maricopa County Jails resulted in violations

of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights (Doc. # 9 at 4, 6). In his First Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff acknowledged that a grievance system existed at the Jail, but with respect to his

excessive force claim, Plaintiff stated that he was never given a grievance form despite

repeated requests. And regarding his claim of overcrowding and exposure to extreme

temperatures, Plaintiff claimed he submitted a grievance and it was returned as not being a

grievable issue (id.). 

In support of his motion to dismiss, Defendant submitted the affidavit of Inmate

Hearing Sergeant Susan Fisher (Fisher Aff., Ex. 1, Doc. # 14). Fisher asserted that she has

searched Plaintiff’s file for records of grievances and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the

grievance process as to his claims (id. at ¶ 6). 

Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s motion on January 29, 2007 (Doc. # 17). Plaintiff

averred that he requested grievance forms, but that the detention officers eventually

threatened him with violence if he kept asking for grievance forms, which forced Plaintiff

to stop asking for them (id. at 1-2). Consequently, Plaintiff argues that he had no “available

remedies” and therefore he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Defendant replied on February 13, 2007 (Doc. # 18). Defendant argued that

Plaintiff’s failure to specifically identify the jail staff who refused Plaintiff’s request for

grievance forms and threatened him precludes a finding that Plaintiff had no available

administrative remedies (id.). 

Plaintiff filed a sur-response on March 8, 2007 (Doc. # 21). Plaintiff averred that

because the detention officers wear vests over their uniforms, it was impossible for Plaintiff

to get all of the names of the officers who refused to provide him with grievance forms or

threatened Plaintiff with violence when he attempted to grieve his excessive force claim.

Case 2:05-cv-03551-ROS-ECV Document 25 Filed 06/18/07 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 -

Nevertheless, Plaintiff further argued that Officers Wu and Stiffler told Plaintiff that

“extreme cold” was not a grievable issue and refused to provide him with a grievance form

(id. at 4). 

The Court provided Defendant with an opportunity to file a sur-reply to address

Plaintiff’s contentions (Doc. # 23), but no sur-reply was filed. 

III. Legal Standard

Plaintiff must first exhaust “available” administrative remedies before bringing this

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). 

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. Wyatt, 315 F.3d 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

A. Count I

Defendants have submitted evidence that Plaintiff failed to fully exhaust his

administrative remedies as to the Count I of his First Amended Complaint—excessive force.

Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to exhaust; rather Plaintiff argues that the grievance

process was unavailable to him for several different reasons. Plaintiff’s argument, however,

is unavailing. Plaintiff has not specifically named any of the officers who refused his request

for grievance forms or threatened him with violation. Nor has Plaintiff described with any

Case 2:05-cv-03551-ROS-ECV Document 25 Filed 06/18/07 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 -

degree of specificity (such as dates, times, or other identifying circumstances) what

transpired to prevent him from filing grievances. Plaintiff claims that officers wear vests

over their uniforms, which prevented Plaintiff from learning the names of the officers who

refused Plaintiff grievance forms for his excessive force claim. But Plaintiff was able to

name officers who refused his requests for grievance forms related to his claim of

overcrowding and extreme temperature. As a result, in light of Plaintiff’s generalized

allegation that detention officers told him that his issues were not grievable, the Court cannot

conclude that Plaintiff had no available administrative remedy regarding his excessive force

claim. Defendant’s motion will therefore be granted on Count I. 

B. Count III 

In contrast to Count I, Plaintiff has presented evidence that Officers Wu and Stiffler

refused Plaintiff’s requests for grievance forms as to his claim of exposure to extreme

temperatures at the jail. Defendant submitted evidence that the grievance process does not

limit the types of issues that an inmate may grieve. Plaintiff, however, has consistently stood

on the allegation in his verified First Amended Complaint that he was told his claim in Count

III could not be grieved, and in his sur-response to Defendant’s motion he specifically

identified two officers who told him so. In light of this evidence, the Court is not persuaded

that Defendants have carried their burden of showing that a remedy was “available” to

Plaintiff as to his claim in Count III. Brown, 422 F.3d at 934-35

Notably, despite being granted additional time to respond to Plaintiff’s sur-response,

the record contains no testimony from any of the officers regarding the truth of Plaintiff’s

assertion that they told him that his issues were not grievable. There is also no evidence

regarding whether other inmates were able to grieve similar issues. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at

1120 n. 15 (remanding for further factual development of the record on exhaustion). In light

of the undeveloped record and Defendant’s failure to meet their burden, the Court will deny

Defendant’s motion without prejudice as to Count III.

///

Case 2:05-cv-03551-ROS-ECV Document 25 Filed 06/18/07 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 -

C. John Doe Defendant

Because the John Doe Defendant was named only in Count I, and Count I has been

dismissed for failure to exhaust, the John Doe Defendant will also be dismissed without

prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 14) is granted in part

and denied in part without prejudice. Count I is dismissed for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. Defendant John Doe is dismissed. This action will continue with

respect to Count III. 

DATED this 15th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-03551-ROS-ECV Document 25 Filed 06/18/07 Page 5 of 5