Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03250/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03250-0/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Lee Owens, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3250-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the

circumstances of his confinement in the Maricopa County Jail violated his constitutional

rights by subjecting him to overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, and by failing to provide

adequate recreational opportunities. The court now has before it defendants' corrected

Motion to Dismiss (doc. 9), plaintiff's Response (doc. 10), and defendants' Reply (doc. 12).

We also have before us plaintiff's Supplemental Response to the corrected motion to dismiss

(doc. 13) and defendants' Reply (doc. 14). 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is based on their contention that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action. The Prison Litigation Reform

Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to

prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies

Case 2:05-cv-03250-FJM-MEA Document 15 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 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 -

as are available are exhausted." It is well established that the exhaustion provisions of 42

U.S.C. § 1997e are mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740, 121 S. Ct. 1819, 1825

(2001). 

Plaintiff acknowledges in his Complaint that there are administrative remedies

available and that he did not exhaust those remedies. However, he asserts that in August and

September, 2004, he submitted two different grievance forms to a detention officer, which

he claims were "accepted and signed," but were then returned to him with a reply that "this

is a non-grievable issue." Plaintiff's Supplemental Response, Exhibit B. Plaintiff submits

only his own affidavit to support this contention; he does not attach copies of those grievance

forms. In reply, defendants' submit an affidavit by Sergeant Zelean Tademy, a Maricopa

County hearing officer whose duties include processing, tracking and storing prisoner

grievances. Sergeant Tademy's review of the inmate grievance records indicated that

plaintiff did not file any grievances during his custody. 

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has implemented a comprehensive grievance

system set forth in Policy DJ-3, which provides for a multi-tiered administrative review

process. Defendants' Motion, Exhibit A. An inmate must complete each level of the

administrative process in order to have fully exhausted his remedies. Each step of the

process provides a mechanism by which an inmate can proceed, even if the institution is

unresponsive to the complaint. The "obligation to exhaust 'available' remedies persists as

long as some remedy remains 'available.' " Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir.

2005) (citing Booth, 532 U.S. 731, 121 S. Ct. 1819). However, an inmate "need not press

on to exhaust further levels of review once he has . . . been reliably informed by an

administrator that no remedies are available." Id. 

Here, even if we assume that plaintiff actually filed grievances that were denied as

"non-grievable," plaintiff still had the opportunity to appeal that denial. The alleged

notification by a detention officer that an issue is "non-grievable" at the first step in the

administrative process is not "reliable information by an administrator" that no further

possibility of relief is available, particularly when the Policy itself imposes no restrictions

Case 2:05-cv-03250-FJM-MEA Document 15 Filed 04/17/06 Page 2 of 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

1

We note that plaintiff incorrectly styles his Response (doc. 10) and his Supplemental

Response (doc. 13) as "motions." In the former case, plaintiff is merely responding to the

original Motion to Dismiss (doc. 6); and in the latter, plaintiff is responding to the amended

Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10). These are not separate motions. Accordingly, the clerk is

instructed to remove docket items 10 and 13 from the motions report. 

- 3 -

on grievable issues. Plaintiff retained the right under Policy DJ-3 to appeal the non-grievable

determination through several additional stages of the administrative process. 

Because plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42

U.S.C. § 1997e, his claims are not properly before us.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 9).1

DATED this 14th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03250-FJM-MEA Document 15 Filed 04/17/06 Page 3 of 3