Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00245/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00245-0/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

BL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald Banks, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0245-PHX-DGC (VAM)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendants moved to dismiss

(Docs. ##6, 12) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff responded (Doc. #8) and Defendants replied

(Doc. #10). After careful review of these pleadings and the record, the Court will grant

Defendants’ motion. 

I. Background

On January 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Sheriff Joseph

M. Arpaio, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by (1) exposure to asbestos

and unsanitary conditions, (2) failure to deliver mail and deliberate indifference to his

medical needs, and (3) overcrowding and excessive force (Doc. #1). Plaintiff asserted that

he completely exhausted his administrative remedies (Id.). Defendant Arpaio was ordered

to answer the Complaint, and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not grieve the issues raised in

the instant complaint (Docs. ##3, 6). Attached to the motion were (1) the Maricopa County

Inmate Grievance Procedures, (2) an affidavit of Sergeant Zelean Tademy, a Hearing Officer

for inmate discipline and grievances, and (3) two grievances filed by Plaintiff (Doc. #6).

Case 2:06-cv-00245-DGC-VAM Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Plaintiff filed a Response arguing that he grieved to the highest level he could and that

a lot of time inmate grievances get lost or thrown in the trash (Doc. #8). Further, Defendant

failed to respond to his grievances and is “covering up” (Id.). Plaintiff then filed an

Amended Complaint as of right (Doc. #9). In his Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants

Arpaio and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, alleging that they violated his

constitutional rights by (1) exposure to asbestos, (2) the failure to deliver his mail,

(3) unsanitary conditions, (3) deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and (4) excessive

force (Id.). Plaintiff stated that he filed several grievances, and the failure of Defendants to

produce copies demonstrates a “cover up” (Doc. #9).

Defendant replied, attaching copies of grievances Plaintiff submitted after he filed the

instant action (Doc. #10). Defendants also filed an Application requesting that the Motion

to Dismiss apply to the Amended Complaint (Doc. #12). Defendants’ request will be

granted.

II. Legal Standard

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner may

not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless all

available administrative remedies are exhausted. See Roles v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016, 1017

(9th Cir. 2006). Exhaustion is mandated “regardless of the relief offered through

administrative procedures.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). It is required in

all inmate suits regarding prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002). To be

“properly exhausted,” the prisoner “must complete the administrative review process in

accordance with the applicable rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit

in federal court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 

 Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court considers exhaustion as a matter

of abatement in an unenumerated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) motion and “may

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. The Court has

broad discretion as to the method to be used in resolving the factual dispute. Ritza v. Int’l

Case 2:06-cv-00245-DGC-VAM Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988). The proper

remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

III. Analysis

An inmate should seek to resolve a conflict through the Maricopa County Jail

System’s Inmate Grievance Procedures. An inmate who wishes to file a grievance will be

provided a Grievance Form upon request, and must submit the form to a detention officer.

The unresolved grievance is forwarded to the shift Supervisor, and then to the Hearing

Officer. If the Hearing Officer is unable to resolve the grievance, the inmate may appeal his

decision to the jail commander, whose decision may be appealed to an External Referee. The

External Referee’s decision is final (Doc. #6, ex. 1). For a medical grievance, the Hearing

Officer promptly forwards the complaint to the charge nurse, who will respond to the inmate.

The inmate may appeal the charge nurse’s decision by filing an External Grievance Appeal,

which is forwarded to the Contracted Health Services Legal Liaison. The Legal Liaison’s

decision is final (Id.).

Tademy attested that Plaintiff only submitted two inmate grievances prior to filing the

instant suit, and did not pursue an External Appeal as to either grievance, or as to any issue

contained in the instant action (Doc. #6, ex. 2). Copies of Plaintiff’s grievances demonstrate

that he filed an inmate grievance regarding his diet and his limited access to his wheelchair

(Id., exs. 3-4). Plaintiff’s grievances were resolved at or before the Bureau Hearing Officer

level (Id.). Defendant also produced copies of multiple grievances Plaintiff submitted after

he filed the instant action (Doc. #10). The majority of these grievances also resolved at or

before the Bureau Hearing Officer level (Id.). However, Plaintiff did externally appeal

grievances regarding the nursing staff (Id.).

Defendant demonstrated the existence of a grievance system to which Plaintiff failed

to fully avail himself. Plaintiff asserted that he exhausted as far as possible; however, the

record demonstrates that after filing the instant action Plaintiff fully exhausted his complaints

regarding the nursing staff. Thus, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff was aware of the

Case 2:06-cv-00245-DGC-VAM Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

grievance procedures, and had the ability to properly utilize it. As for any claim Plaintiff has

in regard to the nursing staff, on which Plaintiff appears to have fully exhausted, because

Plaintiff failed to do this prior to filing the instant action, these claims must also be

dismissed. See Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047,1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (providing that

a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing suit). Thus,

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 6) is granted.

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

must enter a judgment of dismissal accordingly.

DATED this 14th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00245-DGC-VAM Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 4 of 4