Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00388/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00388-2/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

1

On screening, the Court dismissed Haggart and Detention Officers I-XX as

Defendants (Doc. #7).

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Phillip Patch, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0388-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Kenneth Phillip Patch brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (Doc. #6).1

 Defendant filed a

Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. #9), which is fully

briefed (Doc. ##11, 14).

The Court will grant Defendant’s motion in part and deny it in part. 

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claims arose during his confinement at the Fourth Avenue Jail in

Phoenix, Arizona (Doc. #6 at 1). In Count I, Plaintiff alleged that he is a minimum

security pretrial detainee, yet he was housed with sentenced inmates who threatened him

and stole his property (id. at 3). He claimed that Defendant was aware of the threat to

pretrial detainees housed with sentence inmates and was warned about inmate assaults on

other inmates (id.). In Count III, Plaintiff alleged that the noise level in the jail was

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 17 Filed 01/29/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

excessive (id. at 5). And in Count IV, Plaintiff alleged that meals were non-nutritious and

contained moldy and spoiled food (id. at 5a). Plaintiff requested monetary damages and

injunctive relief (id. at 6).

The Court screened the First Amended Complaint, dismissed Counts II and V, and

directed Defendant to file an answer (Doc. #7). Defendant then filed a Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. #9).

II. Motion to Dismiss

A. Defendant’s Contentions

In his motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

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

(id.). In support, Defendant submits the affidavit of Susan Fisher, a Sergeant assigned to

the Inmate Hearing Unit (id., Ex. 1, Fisher Aff. ¶ 1). Fisher describes the jail’s grievance

procedures, which are set out in Policy DJ-3 (id. ¶¶ 3, 5). The three-tiered grievance

system includes an initial grievance and appeal to the Bureau Hearing Officer, the

Institutional appeal, and the External Appeal (id. ¶ 5). Fisher attests that inmates are

informed of the grievance procedures when they receive a copy of the “MCSO Rules and

Regulations for Inmates” (id.). According to the sheriff’s office grievance records, during

his confinement Plaintiff filed five grievances regarding various conditions of

incarceration (id. ¶ 8). Fisher avers that all five grievances were resolved and there were

no appeals submitted (id.). In addition to the affidavit, Defendant submits a copy of the

Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy DJ-3 (id., Ex. A); excerpts from the “MCSO Rules

and Regulations for Inmates” (id., Ex. B); and a “Grievance Listing” chart that lists

Plaintiff’s five grievances (id., Ex. D).

Defendant further argues that Plaintiff failed to show that he suffered actual

physical injury and, therefore, his suit must be dismissed (id. at 5). 

B. Plaintiff’s Response

The Court informed Plaintiff of his obligation to respond and the evidence

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 17 Filed 01/29/09 Page 2 of 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

2

Notice required under Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2003).

- 3 -

necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s contentions (Doc. #10).2 Plaintiff opposes

Defendant’s motion (Doc. #11). He reiterates many of the factual allegations supporting

his First Amended Complaint (id.). As to exhaustion, he argues that despite the grievance

procedures set out in the “Rules and Regulations for Inmates,” in reality, it is difficult to

grieve issues because officers discourage or intimidate inmates from filing grievances,

refuse to accept grievance forms, fail to sign and date grievance forms, and/or retaliate

against inmates who file grievances (id. at 1-3). Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s evidence

suggests that Plaintiff filed only five grievances, but Plaintiff submits that he filed two

grievances on Inmate Request forms and seven grievances on the Inmate Grievance forms

(id. at 9). He proffered copies of these forms along with two Inmate Institutional Appeal

forms (id., Exs.). 

Plaintiff stated that jail staff only responded to some of his grievances about

inadequate food (Count IV); however, given those staff responses, he assumed that the

meal problems were corrected (Doc. #11 at 10). Nonetheless, he explains that although

staff replaced the meals that gave rise to the grievances, the problems with spoiled food

continued (id. at 10-11). With respect to the no-physical-injury argument presented by

Defendant, Plaintiff submits that during his jail confinement, he went from 189 pounds to

139 pounds and experienced digestive and sleeping problems (id. at 11). 

As to his excessive noise claim (Count III), Plaintiff argues that he made one effort

to file a grievance but was told that if he did so, he would be transferred to 23-hour

lockdown protective custody (id. at 5). Plaintiff states that in relation to his threat-tosafety claim in Count I, his efforts to grieve were met with staff refusals to accept

grievance forms and more threats to move him to protective custody (id. at 7). 

In addition to his the grievances about food, Plaintiff submitted grievance forms

regarding lockdown for punitive means against the entire housing pod (id., Attachs.); the

declaration of Jason Long, a fellow inmate (id., Long Decl.); and his own declaration (id.,

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 17 Filed 01/29/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Pl. Decl.). These declarations support the factual allegations in Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (id., Long Decl. & Pl. Decl.).

C. Defendant’s Reply

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s assertions that he could not grieve his claims

due misconduct of jail staff are too general to excuse nonexhaustion (Doc. #14). He also

argues that Plaintiff’s food grievances were all promptly resolved, and Plaintiff offers no

explanation why staff would be willing to resolve these grievances but not others (id. at

2). Defendant maintains that Plaintiff’s evidence, including appeals he filed after

initiating this action, fail to prove that he fully exhausted all administrative remedies (id.). 

 

III. Exhaustion

The PLRA provides that a prisoner may not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison

conditions under § 1983 unless all available administrative remedies have been

exhausted. 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, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (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, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). 

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. 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).

IV. Analysis

A. Count I - Threat to Safety

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 17 Filed 01/29/09 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

Defendant submits evidence that there exists a grievance system at the jail (Doc.

#9, Ex. 1, Fisher Aff. ¶¶ 3,5). With regard to Count I, Plaintiff claims that jail staff

refused to accept his grievances and threatened to place him in protective custody; thus,

he was denied access to administrative remedies (Doc. #11). But Plaintiff provides only

this general allegation that he attempted to grieve to no avail. He has not alleged exactly

what transpired when he attempted to grieve his claim, nor has he specified who refused

to accept grievance forms, who threatened him, or when he made these attempts to grieve. 

Without more specific allegations, Plaintiff cannot overcome Defendant’s evidence

showing that a grievance system was available at the jail for the claim in Count I.

To the extent that Plaintiff implies that his attached grievances may relate to Count

I, the Court notes that outside of the grievances related to inadequate food, three

grievances and two appeals concern lockdowns at the jail (id., Attachs.). Plaintiff

submitted these grievances in June and August 2008 (id.) The appeals were submitted on

June 11, 2008, and November 6, 2007 (id.). The PLRA requires exhaustion before an

action is filed. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see Vaden, 449

F.3d at 1051. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed in April 2008; therefore, the

Court will consider only the appeal filed in November 2007. 

A review of this appeal reflects that Plaintiff grieved an incident that occurred on

November 5, 2007, when the first shift officer instituted a 24-hour lockdown at the lower

tier where Plaintiff was housed. During this lockdown period, video visits and church

services were restricted (Doc. #11, Attach., Inmate Institutional Disciplinary Appeal

dated Nov. 6, 2007). In his appeal, Plaintiff complained that the lockdown was a “blanket

punishment” applied to all inmates, even though it was in response to an “issue”

involving just some inmates (id.). Plaintiff grieved that this action punished pretrial

detainees and their visitors, none of whom were responsible for the “issue,” and that the

lockdown deprived inmates of religious services and phone privileges (id.). This

grievance is not related to the allegations in Count I, which Plaintiff specifically identified

as a threat-to-safety claim and which includes specific claims about exposure to sentenced

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 17 Filed 01/29/09 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

inmates in overcrowded pods and personal threats made against him by other inmates.

(Doc. #6 at 3). Consequently, this November 7, 2007 appeal does not demonstrate an

attempt to exhaust the claim in Count I. 

 On this record, Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies for

Count I, and it will be dismissed without prejudice.

B. Count III - Excessive Noise

Plaintiff states that he made one attempt to file a formal grievance about the

excessive noise caused by detention officers but when he did so, he was threatened (Doc.

#11 at 5). Plaintiff fails to allege when he made this attempt to file a grievance or who

threatened him. Again, without more specific allegations going to his attempt to grieve,

he cannot rebut Defendant’s evidence that a grievance system was in place for this

complaint. And although Plaintiff makes general assertions that inmates are discouraged

by officers from filing grievances and officers retaliate by various means against inmates

who grieve issues (id. at 2-3), there is no explanation why he was still able to submit nine

grievances about meals but not a single grievance concerning the noise (see id.. #11, Exs.

(referring to grievances filed 7/11/07, 7/17/97, 7/21/07, 11/08/07, 12/09/07, 12/09/07,

1/11/08, 1/12/08, and 2/09/08)). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s general claims that he

tried but was unable to grieve the claim in Count III are insufficient to survive

Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count III for nonexhaustion.

C. Count IV - Inadequate Food

Plaintiff specifically alleges that on June 1, 2007, he attempted to grieve his

complaint about food; he states that the floor officers on three different shifts all refused

to accept the grievance form (Doc. #11 at 9). Plaintiff submits copies of grievances he

was able to submit that complain about spoiled food, missing food, or reduced servings of

food (id., Exs.). He explains that when jail staff responded to these grievances, he

assumed that the basis for each grievance was corrected (id. at 10). Plaintiff states that on

some occasions, officers replaced his lunch bag; another time, one officer confirmed that

Plaintiff’s food was spoiled; and once a dietician met with Plaintiff and described the

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 17 Filed 01/29/09 Page 6 of 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

- 7 -

jail’s food policies with regard to cooking turkey (id.). The written responses from staff

evidence that Plaintiff’s concerns were responded to by shift supervisors who confirmed

receipt of spoiled food, replaced the food, and even advised Plaintiff “we will see to it

that the spoiled turkey is put to a stop . . . fresh turkey was served today thus showing this

issue is being taken care of” (id., Exs. (grievances dated 1/17/07, 7/21/07, and 12/09/07)). 

In his reply, Defendant confirms that five grievances related to food were promptly

resolved (Doc. #14 at 2). 

The question on Count IV is whether Plaintiff was required to proceed with the

appeal process after he received a resolution of the problem at a lower level in grievance

procedure. Defendant offers no argument going to this question. In Brown, the Ninth

Circuit held that if an inmate receives all the available remedies at an intermediate level

of review, he need not proceed to further levels of review. See Brown, 422 F.3d at 935. 

This appears to be the case with Plaintiff. And without any suggestion or argument

otherwise, Defendant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that Plaintiff was

required to appeal his food grievances after jail staff provided remedies at the inmate

grievance level. On this record, Defendant cannot show that Plaintiff failed to exhaust

available administrative remedies.

D. Physical Injury

Defendant’s remaining argument is that Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed

because he makes no credible allegation that he suffered actual injury as required under

§ 1997e(e) of the PLRA (Doc. #9 at 5). In Oliver v. Keller, the Ninth Circuit determined

that even absent physical injury, the prisoner-plaintiff was entitled to seek compensatory,

nominal, and punitive damages premised on violations of his Fourteenth Amendment

rights. 289 F.3d 263, 629-30 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court held that § 1997e(e) applied

only to claims for mental and emotional injury and not to claims for relief for the

underlying constitutional violations. Id.; see Shaheed-Muhammad v. Dipaolo, 393

F. Supp. 2d 80, 107 (D. Mass. 2005) (“the violation of a constitutional right is an

independent injury that is immediately cognizable and outside the purview of

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 17 Filed 01/29/09 Page 7 of 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

- 8 -

§ 1997e(e)”). 

Here, Plaintiff did not bring a claim for mental and emotional injury; he brought a

claim for the violation of his Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights (Doc. #6 at 3, 5,

5a (alleging violations of his due process rights and his right against cruel and unusual

punishment)). Under Oliver, these claims are not barred by § 1997e(e). 

In sum, Defendant has failed to demonstrate nonexhaustion or any other ground

for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim regarding inadequate food. The Motion to Dismiss will

be denied as to Count IV.

IT IS ORDERED:

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

to Dismiss (Doc. #9).

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #9) is granted in part and denied in

part as follows:

(a) the motion is granted to Counts I (threat-to-safety) and III (excessive

noise); Counts I and III are dismissed without prejudice; and 

(b) the motion is denied as to Count IV (inadequate food).

DATED this 28th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 17 Filed 01/29/09 Page 8 of 8