Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00238/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00238-1/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

Wilbert Waters, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0238-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendant moved to dismiss for

lack of exhaustion (Doc. #21). Plaintiff responded, and Defendant replied (Doc. ##23, 24).

With leave of the Court, Plaintiff submitted a second response to the motion, to which

Defendant did not reply (Doc. #29). The Court will grant Defendant’s motion.

I. Background

In his Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff sued Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and alleged

that his constitutional rights were violated by insufficient food and overcrowding at the

Durango Jail (Doc. #14). The Court ordered an answer, and Defendant filed a Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. ##17, 21).

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. #21). In support, Defendant submitted the affidavit of Zelean Tademy, a Sergeant

assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit (Id., Ex. 1). Tademy attested that officers pass out

grievances to inmates as part of their daily duties, and that inmates may grieve all issues

Case 2:05-cv-00238-MHM-DKD Document 30 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 -

relating to conditions of confinement (Tademy Aff. ¶¶ 9-10). Tademy further attested that,

according to sheriff’s office records, Plaintiff did not file any grievances during his

confinement at the jail (Id. ¶ 12). Defendant also proffered a copy of the jail’s Inmate

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

Inmates” (Ex. 1A, 1C, Doc. #21).

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

evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s contentions (Doc. #22). Plaintiff filed

a response to the Order and asserted that he did not receive a copy of Defendant’s motion

(Doc. #23). He also alleged that Defendant’s move to dismiss the action was merely an

attempt to escape responsibility for the alleged violations. In his reply, Defendant argued the

Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to demonstrate that he exhausted administrative

remedies (Doc. #24).

In light of Plaintiff’s assertion that he did not receive a copy of the Motion to Dismiss,

the Court ordered Defendant to mail a copy of the motion to Plaintiff and permitted Plaintiff

to file a supplemental response (Doc. #27). Plaintiff responded that he was enclosing copies

of letters he sent to the hearing officer regarding overcrowding at the jail; however, the

attached documents are actually copies of the Court’s Order and Defendant’s Notice of

Mailing of their motion (Doc. #29). Defendant did not file a reply.

II. Legal Standard

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

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,

Case 2:05-cv-00238-MHM-DKD Document 30 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 -

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

In his verified Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he submitted a request for

administrative relief for each of his counts but did not appeal them to the highest level

because he was transferred to the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) (Doc. #14 at

4-5). A transfer between two different systems may possibly render remedies unavailable.

See, e.g., Bradley v. Washington, 441 F. Supp. 2d 97, 103 (D. D. C. 2006) (denying motion

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion where inmate was transferred from jail to federal system,

and jail’s grievance procedures made no provision for submission of complaint for persons

no longer detained in the jail). But Plaintiff has not submitted any specific allegations

regarding the date that his claims accrued, when he allegedly filed grievances, and the

reasons why he could not complete the process before his transfer. His general allegations

do not support his claim. The time frames set forth in Policy DJ-3 are relatively short;

therefore, depending on when his initial grievances were filed, Plaintiff might have been able

to exhaust if he adhered to the policy’s time table. 

Moreover, Defendant proffered evidence that Plaintiff was housed in Durango Jail

from December 2004 until March 15, 2005 (Tademy Aff. ¶ 11, Ex. 1, Doc. #21). Plaintiff

filed this action on January 20, 2005, almost two months before he was transferred out of the

jail (See Doc. #1). Without more from Plaintiff, the Court cannot determine whether – if he

did file grievances – Plaintiff’s ability to appeal was in fact impeded by his transfer to the

ADC.

Case 2:05-cv-00238-MHM-DKD Document 30 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 -

 Plaintiff was informed that if Defendant produced admissible evidence in support of

his motion, the Complaint would be dismissed unless Plaintiff produced admissible evidence

sufficient to show that available administrative remedies were exhausted (Doc. #22 at 2).

The Court provided Plaintiff with a second opportunity to produce admissible evidence to

overcome Defendant’s evidence; specifically, “copies of grievances and affidavits” (Doc.

#27 at 2). Despite these warnings, Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence beyond his verified

Amended Complaint to demonstrate that he exhausted his available remedies.

The Court finds that Defendant has met his burden to show that a grievance system

was available prior to Plaintiff’s transfer, and that Plaintiff failed to avail himself of that

system. 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. #21) 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-00238-MHM-DKD Document 30 Filed 02/13/07 Page 4 of 4