Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04177/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04177-6/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

Jamonz Ross, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jamonz Ross brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff (Doc. #1). Defendant filed an Amended Motion

to Dismiss seeking dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. #74). The

motion has been fully briefed (Doc. ##76, 79).

The Court will deny Defendant’s motion.

I. Background

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by

overcrowding (Count I), inadequate medical care (Count II), and unsanitary conditions at the

Maricopa County jails (Count III) (Doc. #1 at 4-6). The Court ordered an answer, and

Defendant filed his first Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

(Doc. ##3, 6). Defendant’s motion was granted only as to Count I, which was dismissed

from the action. (Doc. #15). In its Order, the Court directed Defendant to file either an

answer or a new Rule 12(b) motion within 10 days (id.).

Case 2:05-cv-04177-MHM Document 85 Filed 05/06/08 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 -

Defendant filed an Answer and later moved for summary judgment on Count II (Doc.

##16, 59). The Court granted the motion and Count II was dismissed (Doc. #68).

The sole remaining claim is Count III (Doc. #1 at 6). Plaintiff claimed that no

cleaning supplies or chemicals were provided to inmates. He also alleged that there were just

2 showers, 2 toilets, and 2 sinks for over 100 detainees, and that the only available drinking

water was from the sinks (id.). Finally, he claimed that the air filters in the jails were never

changed. Plaintiff stated that as a result of these conditions, he suffered a rash, red and

swollen eyes, breathing problems, and sleep loss (id.). He sued for compensatory and

punitive damages (id. at 7).

In his Amended Motion to Dismiss Count III, 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. #74). In support, Defendant submitted the affidavit of

Susan Fisher, a Sergeant with the Inmate Hearing Unit (id., Ex. A, Fisher Aff. ¶ 1). Fisher

described the three steps in the jail’s grievance system: (1) the initial grievance; (2) the

Institutional appeal; and (3) the External appeal (id. ¶ 5). She attested that Plaintiff filed a

total of six grievances during his confinement at the county jails, and that none of these

grievances related to cleaning supplies or unsanitary conditions (id. ¶ 8). Fisher’s affidavit

is supported by copies of the Inmate Grievance Procedure Policy; two pages from the “Rules

and Regulations for Inmates”; and a Grievance Listing chart that lists the date, Grievance

Number and description of Plaintiff’s six grievances (id., Ex. A, Attachs.). 

Defendant further stated that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office maintains specific

sanitation policies and regulations, which include systems for cleaning laundry and providing

inmate personal hygiene supplies (Doc. #74 at 4). Defendant proffered copies of the housing

unit cleaning rules (id., Ex. B), the Inmate Laundry Policy (id., Ex. C), the Jail Inspections

Policy (id., Ex. D), and the Inmate Hygiene Policy (id., Ex. E). 

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

evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s contentions (Doc. #75). In his

response, Plaintiff argued that the Court has already ruled that Defendant failed to show

Case 2:05-cv-04177-MHM Document 85 Filed 05/06/08 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 -

nonexhaustion of this claim and that the Amended Motion presents no new information that

would change that determination (Doc. #76). He submitted a copy of the Court’s Order on

the first Motion to Dismiss, which found that Defendant failed to refute Plaintiff’s claim that

he filed an External appeal on his unsanitary conditions grievance (id., Attach.). 

In his one-page reply, Defendant contended that since the Court’s ruling on the first

Motion to Dismiss, there was a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of inadequate

medical care that was granted for Defendant (Doc. #79). Defendant stated that his Amended

Motion relates to the remaining sanitation claim (id.).

II. Legal Standard

A prisoner must exhaust “available” administrative remedies before bring an action

in federal court. 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, 127 S. Ct. 910, 919-21 (2007).

The defendant bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1119. 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. And 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). Further, the issue of exhaustion must precede consideration

of the merits issues, which are addressed in a summary judgment motion. See Perez v. Wis.

Dep’t of Corrs., 182 F.3d 532, 536 (7th Cir. 1999).

III. Analysis

Defendant contends that Plaintiff filed six grievances during his confinement at the

jail but that none of the six grievances concerned unsanitary conditions (Doc. #74). This is

Case 2:05-cv-04177-MHM Document 85 Filed 05/06/08 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 -

the same argument Defendant presented in his first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6). In the

Court’s Order denying that motion as to Count III, Defendant was given 10 days to file a new

Rule 12(b) motion (see Doc. #15, Order dated Sept. 2006). Defendant’s Amended Motion

to Dismiss comes 16 months after that Order (Doc. #74, dated Jan. 2008). Moreover, the

deadline for filing dispositive motions was October 9, 2007 (see Doc. #62); yet, Defendant

did not file a second Motion to Dismiss until November 29 (Doc. #69) and the Amended

Motion to Dismiss until January 3, 2008 (Doc. #74). The present motion is therefore

untimely. 

More importantly, as Plaintiff notes, Defendant presents no new information or new

evidence demonstrating a failure to exhaust Count III. Indeed, in his Amended Motion

Defendant proffers less evidence concerning the exhaustion issue; notably, he does not

submit copies of Plaintiff’s grievances (see Doc. #74, Exs. A-E). These grievances, which

were submitted with the first Motion to Dismiss, show that Plaintiff filed an External appeal

that was never answered (Doc. #6, Ex. H). Plaintiff consistently maintained that this

External appeal concerned unsanitary conditions (Doc. #9, 12). Defendant presents nothing

in his Amended Motion to disprove this claim. Thus, he has again failed to meet his burden

to demonstrate nonexhaustion of Count III and his Amended Motion will be denied. 

As to Defendant’s contention that there are numerous policies at the jail addressing

cleaning procedures and personal hygiene, this appears to go to the substance of Plaintiff’s

claim, rather than to the issue of exhaustion (Doc. #74 at 4). But Defendant does not

articulate an argument; he merely states that there are cleaning/hygiene policies and submits

copies of those policies (id., Exs. B-E). 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), a motion to dismiss may be treated as

one for summary judgment under Rule 56; however, if so, the plaintiff must be given an

opportunity to present affidavits or other evidence in response. Here, Plaintiff was not put

on notice that Defendant’s motion may be considered as a summary judgment motion.

Defendant asserted that he was moving to dismiss only for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies under the PLRA (see id. at 1), and the Court’s Order informed Plaintiff of his

Case 2:05-cv-04177-MHM Document 85 Filed 05/06/08 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 -

obligation to respond only to the nonexhaustion claim (see Doc. #75). As such, to the extent

that Defendant moves for dismissal based on the existence of sanitation policies, his evidence

will not be considered and the request for dismissal will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #74) is

denied.

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-04177-MHM Document 85 Filed 05/06/08 Page 5 of 5