Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00560/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00560-7/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Sergio Cortez Benitez, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-0560-RCB (JFM) 

 O R D E R 

 Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA). (Doc. 12.) Defendant Maricopa County has filed a Motion to Dismiss for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim.1

 (Doc. 27). 

Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Docs. 29-31.) 

 The Court will grant the motion and terminate the action. 

I. Background 

In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that prior to his arrest, he had 

surgery on his lower back and that after his arrest, Maricopa County Correctional Health 

Services (CHS) provided Plaintiff with a cane, which Plaintiff needed to avoid falling. 

(Doc. 12.) On May 27, 2011, Plaintiff was awakened by two detention officers to go to 

court; he was placed in leg and hand restraints. A female officer saw that Plaintiff had a 

cane and told him that he could not take the cane to court even after Plaintiff showed her 

 

1

 The Court provided Plaintiff with notice pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 28.) 

Case 2:12-cv-00560-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/21/13 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

the paperwork regarding the cane. While being transported to court in leg and hand 

restraints, Plaintiff fell several times. Officers obtained a wheelchair for him when it 

became apparent that he could not walk. Plaintiff contends that he suffered permanent 

injury to his lower back as a consequence of falling after his cane was taken and that he 

has become incontinent. 

 The Court determined that Plaintiff stated a claim under the ADA and directed 

Maricopa County to answer the claim. (Doc. 13.) It dismissed the remaining claims. 

(Id.) 

II. Motion to Dismiss 

 A. Exhaustion 

 1. Legal Standard

 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 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. 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). 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:12-cv-00560-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/21/13 Page 2 of 8
- 3 - 

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. Parties’ Contentions 

 a. Defendant 

Defendant submits the affidavit of Sergeant Hernandez, excerpts from the Rules 

and Regulations for Inmates, blank grievance forms, and Plaintiff’s grievances. 

Defendant asserts that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) has a multi-level 

grievance process, which is established by the MCSO Policy DJ-3, Inmate Grievance 

Procedure, and is also detailed in the Rules and Regulations for Inmates. (Doc. 27 at 4, 

Ex. A, Hernandez Aff., Attach. 1 and 2.) The process to submit a grievance is as follows: 

Within 48 hours of the event being grieved, the inmate must submit an 

inmate grievance from to detention personnel, who attempt to resolve the issue. Id. at ¶¶ 2(A); 2(A)(1). 

If the detention officer cannot resolve the issue, the inmate grievance form 

is then forwarded to the shift supervisor. Id. at ¶ 2(A)(2). 

If the shift supervisor is unable to resolve the grievance, then the shift 

supervisor forwards the inmate grievance form to a shift commander who 

will attempt to resolve the issue. Id. at ¶2(B)(2) 

If he or she is unable to resolve the issue within seven days of receiving it, 

he or she forwards the inmate grievance form to the hearing unit. Id. at ¶ 

2(B)(2). 

A hearing sergeant then reviews the matter and attempts to resolve it within 

seven working days from the date of receipt. Id. at ¶ 2(C). 

If the inmate is not satisfied with the outcome of the grievance (or if the 

inmate does not receive a response within seven working days), the inmate 

may initiate a formal grievance by filing an Institutional Grievance Appeal 

with the jail commander. This Appeal must be appealed within 24 hours of 

receiving the jail commander’s response. Id. at ¶ 4(A)(1)(b). 

The responses and written decision by the external referee concludes the 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office formal grievance procedure, and results 

in the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Id. at ¶ 4(B)(1)(b). 

 Plaintiff submitted grievance #11-04248 on June 9, 2011, but he failed to submit 

an External Grievance. (Doc. 27 at 5.) Plaintiff also submitted grievance #11-04275 on 

Case 2:12-cv-00560-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/21/13 Page 3 of 8
- 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 

June 13, 2011 which was identical to grievance #11-04248. Grievance #11-04275 was 

signed as informally resolved by Plaintiff, thus stopping the grievance process. (Id.)

 b. Plaintiff 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s exhibits show that at the bottom of each page, an 

appeal was submitted to the External Referee, which exhausted the administrative 

procedures. (Doc. 29 at 2; ref. Doc. 27-2 at 2 and 13.) Plaintiff also asserts that although 

Defendant argues that once an informal resolution is found the grievance process ends, 

further grievances would have been deemed an abuse of the grievance system. 

 Plaintiff claims that due to random cell searches, many of his documents were 

confiscated. (Id.) He asks that if the Court determines that he did not exhaust his 

administrative remedies, that the Court stay the case so that he can do so. (Id. at 4-5.) In 

his first Addendum, he claims that his English is limited. (Doc. 30 at 1.) In his second 

Addendum, Plaintiff asserts that the PLRA does not apply to inmates with an 

immigration hold, which Plaintiff has. (Doc. 31 at 1, citing Agyeman v. INS., 296 F.3d 

871 (9th Cir. 2002); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1999).) 

 c. Reply 

Defendant replies that regarding grievance #11-04248, Plaintiff submitted his 

Inmate Grievance on June 9, 2011 and alleged that he fell and injured his leg and back 

because his walking cane was taken away from him. (Doc. 32 at 2.) On June 15, 2011, 

Plaintiff submitted an Institutional Appeal requesting his grievance be sent to the Jail 

Commander. Plaintiff received a response to his grievance on June 29, 2011 indicating 

that the grievance was resolved because he had been provided with a walker. Unsatisfied 

with this, Plaintiff checked the box on the grievance form for “Forward to External 

referee (UNRESOLVED)” and signed the Institutional Appeal. (Doc. 27-2 at 2.) 

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to submit an External Grievance Appeal and so did 

not comply with the jail’s grievance procedures. Sgt. Hernandez’ affidavit establishes 

that Plaintiff never filed an external appeal for grievance #11-04248, and Plaintiff has not 

provided controverting evidence. Defendant contends that grievance #12-01496 has 

Case 2:12-cv-00560-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/21/13 Page 4 of 8
- 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 

nothing to do with the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Id. at 2-

3.) 

 Defendant argues that there are no special circumstances in Plaintiff’s case that 

warrant an exception to the PLRA exhaustion requirement. The Defendants made no 

efforts to mislead the Plaintiff about his rights or to suggest an imprudent course of action 

to him. (Id. at 3-4.)

As to Plaintiff’s request for a stay so that he can complete exhaustion, Defendant 

asserts that exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. (Id. at 3.) Defendant also argues 

that the Agyeman and Page cases cited by Plaintiff are inapposite. In Agyeman, the court 

found that the filing-fee provisions of the PLRA did not apply to an INS detainee 

petitioning for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision because the petitioner 

was not a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA, and in Page the court determined 

that the inmate was not a prisoner because he was being held as part of a civil 

commitment, not as a criminal. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff provides no evidence 

that he is being held in custody on an immigration matter. (Id. at 4-5.) 

3. Analysis 

The Court finds that Defendant has established that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies. 

 First, the Court holds that Plaintiff is required to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. The PLRA defines a “prisoner” as “any person incarcerated or detained in any 

facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, 

violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial 

release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h). The statutory term “prisoner” is 

limited to an individual who is “currently detained as a result of accusation, conviction, 

or sentence for a criminal offense.” Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 

2000) (emphasis added). Thus, the term “prisoner” does not encompass a civil detainee 

for purposes of the PLRA. Id. 

Case 2:12-cv-00560-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/21/13 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

As Defendant notes, Plaintiff provides no evidence of an INS hold, and the record 

shows that Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed from the Maricopa County Jail and that he is 

now in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC). (Doc. 19.) The 

ADC website shows an offense date of October 1, 2009.2

 Thus, the record indicates that 

Plaintiff was a “prisoner” within the meaning of the PLRA at the time he filed his 

Complaint and, therefore, is subject to the exhaustion requirements. 

 Turning to whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, Defendant 

submits evidence that although Plaintiff indicated on June 29, 2011, that he wanted the 

matter raised in grievance #11-04248 forwarded to the external referee, Plaintiff never, in 

fact, submitted an external grievance appeal form. The Inmate Institutional Grievance 

Appeal Form states at the bottom of the page that if the inmate is not satisfied with the 

Jail Commander’s response, the inmate must submit an external grievance appeal form 

within 24 hours. Plaintiff does not rebut Defendant’s evidence, and the Court finds that 

grievance #11-04248 did not exhaust administrative remedies. And as Defendant notes, 

grievance #12-01496 relates to medication, not the issues raised in the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

But Plaintiff also filed grievance #11-04275 on June 13, 2011, raising the issues of 

the denial of the cane and the subsequent fall. (Doc. 27-2 at 3.) This grievance was 

deemed resolved. An “inmate has no obligation to appeal from a grant of relief, or a 

partial grant that satisfies him, in order to exhaust his administrative remedies.” Harvey 

v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 2010). The resolution, which Plaintiff signed on 

June 23, 2011, appears to state “will get walker for [illegible]. Show them your extra 

items stip for a wheelchair for court. Mr. Benites you had a CT & MRI done at the 

hospital emergency [illegible] your back CT & x-ray were negative at the hospital.” 

(Doc. 27-2 at 3.) 

 

2

http://www.azcorrections.gov/Inmate_DataSearch/results_Minh.aspx?InmateNu mber=278848&LastName=BENITEZ&FNMI=S&SearchType=SearchInet. Last visited 

August 5, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00560-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/21/13 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

 The issue is whether this resolution constitutes a grant of relief or partial relief. 

The Court finds on the facts of this case that it does not. Plaintiff’s grievance #11-04248 

was dated June 9, 2011. (Doc. 27-2 at 1.) The Sergeant noted on June 14 that it was a 

repeat of grievance #11-04275. (Id.) Plaintiff filed his grievance appeal to the Jail 

Commander on June 15 for #11-04248. (Id. 27-2 at 2.) The Jail Commander’s response 

was that he met with Plaintiff on June 23 regarding grievance #11-04275 and it was 

“resolved based on obtaining a wheelchair for him to use.” (Id.) But Plaintiff then 

determined on June 29 that the matter was, in fact, unresolved. (Id.) In other words, both 

of Plaintiff’s grievances addressed the same issue, and Plaintiff’s last action---on June 29 

in #11-04248---was to designate the grievance unresolved. In order to pursue the 

grievance, Plaintiff was required to file an external grievance appeal, which he apparently 

did not do. 

 Plaintiff presents no grounds to excuse exhaustion of administrative remedies. 

Finally, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for a stay to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. The PLRA mandates that an inmate exhaust remedies before filing a lawsuit; 

exhausting remedies during the course of the lawsuit does not comply with the 

requirement. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). The statute 

itself states that “[n]o action shall be brought . . . until [the prisoner=s] administrative 

remedies . . . are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a). 

Because the Court finds that Defendant has met its burden to show failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies, the Court need not reach Defendant’s remaining 

argument. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 (1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant 

Maricopa County’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27). 

 (2) Defendant Maricopa County’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27) is granted. 

/// 

Case 2:12-cv-00560-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/21/13 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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) Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. The 

Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

 DATED this 21st day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00560-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/21/13 Page 8 of 8