Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00467/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00467-0/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Moynihan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-0467-PHX-FJM

ORDER

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

of his confinement at the Maricopa County Towers Jail facility violated his constitutional

rights. Specifically, he contends that his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion

was violated by defendants' failure to provide him with a vegetarian diet, and his Eighth

Amendment right was violated by defendants' failure to provide adequate medical care. The

court now has before it defendants Gonzalez, Price and Reddy's motion to dismiss (doc. 22)

and defendant Maricopa County Correctional Health Services' motion to dismiss (doc. 25),

plaintiff's responses (docs. 29, 30), and defendants' reply (doc. 32). 

Defendants move the court to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ.

P., for plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 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 . . . by a prisoner . . . until such administrative remedies

Case 2:06-cv-00467-FJM-MEA Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 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). 

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO") policy number DJ-3 provides for a multitiered administrative review process for grievances. First, an inmate must submit a grievance

form to a detention officer. An unresolved grievance then advances to the shift supervisor,

a hearing officer, and then to the jail commander. If the issue is not resolved by the jail

commander, the inmate may then file an external grievance appeal, which is forwarded to an

external referee. The decision of the external referee concludes the MCSO formal grievance

procedure and results in the exhaustion of administrative remedies. According to MCSO

records, plaintiff did not file any external grievance appeals before filing the present

complaint. 

Plaintiff acknowledges that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, but

asserts that MCSO staff prevented him from doing so by refusing to provide him with

grievance and inmate request forms and by refusing to accept his completed forms. He

supports his claims by proffering, among other things, fourteen grievance and inmate request

forms which he completed between January 10 and February 3, 2006. His claim that he

"never received any requested forms from these detention officers," Plaintiff's Declaration

¶ 8, is simply not plausible in light of the numerous forms he submitted to this court. 

Moreover, plaintiff's argument that MCSO officers' refusal to accept his completed

forms prevented him from exhausting his administrative remedies is belied by the receiving

officers' signatures on many of the completed forms. See Plaintiff's Response, Exhibits 5,

6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14. Although he claims that on January 27, 2006, defendants Price and

Gonzalez refused his requests for forms, id., Exhibit Journal Entries – January 27, 2006, the

record shows that plaintiff in fact completed three inmate request forms and two grievance

forms on January 27, 2006 alone. Id., Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6. One of the January 27th

grievances, although not signed by a detention officer, nevertheless continued through the

administrative process and was signed by the shift supervisor on February 1, 2006, and by

Case 2:06-cv-00467-FJM-MEA Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 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

- 3 -

a hearing officer on February 6, 2006. Id., Exhibit 6. Plaintiff offers no explanation for his

failure to pursue this grievance through the next step–the external grievance appeal. 

In support of their motions, defendants submit the affidavit of Susan Fisher, a hearing

officer for inmate discipline and grievances, attesting that according to sheriff's office

records, plaintiff did not file any external appeals. She also attests that during the same

period of time that plaintiff was confined in the Towers Jail, there were 1,062 grievances

filed by other inmates. Defendants further argue that all of the documents that plaintiff

actually filed and submitted to this court are documents that he would have received from the

same detention officers whom he alleges refused to provide him with forms. 

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that defendants have adequately established that

administrative procedures were available to plaintiff and that he failed to exhaust them.

Accordingly, we grant the defendants' motions to dismiss (docs. 22, 25). We also conclude

that Correctional Health Services is a non-jural entity and is therefore not amenable to suit

under § 1983. Any action challenging a county policy must be brought against the county

itself and not against an administrative subdivision of the county. CHS's motion to dismiss

is granted on this alternative basis. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants Gonzalez, Price and Reddy's

motion to dismiss (doc. 22). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendant

Maricopa County Correctional Health Services' motion to dismiss (doc. 25). 

DATED this 6th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00467-FJM-MEA Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 3