Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02813/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02813-0/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

SRM

- 1 -

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles McManus,

Plaintiff

-vsD.L. Ridgley, et al.,

Defendant(s)

CV-04-2813-PHX-MHM (JI)

ORDER

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (#9) on March 7, 2005 (#9), seeking to dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint on the basis that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as

required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). On March 18,

2005, Plaintiff responded (#13) to the motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff has properly

exhausted his remedies. At the same time that Plaintiff filed his Response, he also filed a

“Notice” (#12) asserting that he had encountered difficulties in obtaining from the prison

sufficient copies of his Exhibit #1. Exhibit 1 was attached to original Response, but not to

the copies. On March 25, 2005, Defendants filed their Reply (#15) noting that they had not

received copies of the Plaintiff’s exhibits, and requesting an order directing service of the

exhibits and an extension of time to reply. In addition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has

failed to show exhaustion of his remedies.

On April 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed a surreply labeled “Response to Motion to Dismiss”

(#17). This filing restates the contents of the original response, adds an argument that

presentation of the matter to the Director exhausts administrative remedies, and that Plaintiff

has since submitted a notice of claim. Plaintiff attaches to this surreply the following

Exhibits:

1. An Inmate Grievance Appeal submitted by Plaintiff on October 19, 2004 to

Case 2:04-cv-02813-MHM-JRI Document 22 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Director Schriro, referring to the denial of a pen or pen filler by Defendants.

The included response indicates that the appeal was rejected because it was

“out of time frames.” 

2. A portion of an order in McManus v. Gibson, Case No. CV-01-1225-PHXMHM (JI).

3. A Notice of Claim submitted by Plaintiff. 

On April 13, 2005, Defendants filed a Notice to Court (#18) indicating the belief that

Plaintiff’s Surreply should be stricken on the basis that briefing was complete.

In the meantime, on March 24, 2005, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Ngo v.

Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005), finding that the PLRA’s exhaustion

requirement does not include a procedural default component. Rather, where an inmate’s

grievance is untimely, “the inmate must still submit his untimely grievance to the prison and

appeal all denials of his claims completely through the prison's administrative process to

satisfy the PLRA's exhaustion requirement.” Id. at 629. When the prisoner has done so, the

federal court may consider the claim. Id. at 631.

Rather than striking or ignoring Plaintiff’s surreply and the exhibits submitted

therewith, the Court will allow Defendants to further reply in light of that surreply and the

decision in Ngo. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants shall have ten days from the filing

of this Order to further reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss, filed March 7, 2005 (#9).

DATED this 12th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02813-MHM-JRI Document 22 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2