Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00397/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00397-2/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

Upon screening of the original Complaint, the Court dismissed the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office as a Defendant (See Order, Doc. #12). 

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stacey Suzanne Gruenberg, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0397-PHX-SMM (DKD)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a former county jail inmate, Defendants moved

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #23). Plaintiff responded, and Defendants replied

(Doc. ##28, 30). The Court will deny Defendants’ motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint set forth allegations of constitutional violations

by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Officer Bustamonte1

 (Doc. #15). Plaintiff alleged that due to

overcrowding at the jail, she was confined in a two-inmate cell with three other inmates (Id.

at 4). She claimed that one cellmate assaulted her and, although she begged Bustamonte for

help and a nurse asked that Plaintiff be removed from the cell, Bustamonte walked away and

left Plaintiff in the cell for 10-15 minutes during which time Plaintiff was further assaulted

Case 2:06-cv-00397-SMM-DKD Document 34 Filed 03/15/07 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 -

(Id.). Plaintiff alleged that Arpaio was aware of the overcrowding but failed to take steps to

ensure the safety of inmates, and that Bustamonte failed to take steps to protect Plaintiff from

further assault (Id.). The Court ordered Defendants to answer and they filed a Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. ##16, 23).

In their motion, Defendants contended that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her

administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a) (Doc. #23). In support, Defendants submitted the affidavit of Susan Fisher, a

Sergeant with the Inmate Hearing Unit (Ex. 1, Doc. #23). Fisher attested that inmates are

notified of the grievance procedures when they receive a copy of the “Rules and Regulations

For Inmates” (Fisher Aff. ¶ 5). Fisher further attested that she searched the inmate grievance

records maintained by the sheriff’s office and found that there were no grievances filed by

Stacey S. Gruenberg, #P135197, during her incarceration at the jail (Id. ¶ 7). Defendants also

submitted a copy of the Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy DJ-3, and a copy of two pages

from the “Rules and Regulations For Inmates” (Exs. A-B, Doc. #23).

The Court issued an order informing Plaintiff of her obligation to respond and of the

evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendants’ contentions (Doc. #24). In response,

Plaintiff asserted that she did exhaust her administrative remedies (Doc. #28). Plaintiff stated

that she submitted an Inmate Grievance Form on the day of her injuries. She explained that

the grievance went to the Bureau Hearing Officer and then to an Internal Appeal. Plaintiff

attached an affidavit in which she avowed that she filed a grievance and appealed it to the

External Referee (Pl. Aff., Doc. #28). Plaintiff stated that her appeal was forwarded to the

External Referee just before her release from jail. Finally, Plaintiff denied that her booking

number at the time of the underlying incident was #P135197 and asserted that her grievance

and appeals were submitted under a previous booking number (Doc. #28 at 2-3).

Defendants replied and argued that Plaintiff’s response failed to address whether she

complied with the requirements of the PLRA (Doc. #30). Defendants contended that

Plaintiff cannot prove that the jail’s grievance system does not address the concerns related

to jail conditions, such as overcrowding (Id. at 3).

Case 2:06-cv-00397-SMM-DKD Document 34 Filed 03/15/07 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 -

II. Legal Standard

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). She 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). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 919-21 (2007).

Defendants bear 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. 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). 

III. Analysis

As stated, Defendants bear the burden of proving lack of exhaustion. See Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1119. Although Defendants demonstrated that a grievance system exists at the jail,

they failed to proffer any evidence refuting Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants’ search for her

grievances was conducted under the wrong booking number.

Plaintiff proffered an affidavit attesting that she grieved her claims all the way through

to the final step of the grievance process (Pl. Aff., Doc. #28). She further claimed that the

booking number Fisher used in the search of inmate grievance records was the incorrect

booking number. In their reply, Defendants did not address this allegation. Instead, they

reasserted their reliance on Fisher’s search of the sheriff’s office records to support their

argument. The only other evidence submitted by Defendants shows that a grievance system

was available at the jail, which Plaintiff conceded. In light of Plaintiff’s unrebutted claim

Case 2:06-cv-00397-SMM-DKD Document 34 Filed 03/15/07 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 -

that the records search used the incorrect booking number and was therefore unreliable,

Defendants have failed to carry their burden to demonstrate nonexhaustion. Accordingly,

Defendants’ motion will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #23) is denied without

prejudice.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00397-SMM-DKD Document 34 Filed 03/15/07 Page 4 of 4