Opinion
No. CV 04-2845-PHX-DGC (MEA).
June 13, 2006
ORDER
In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendant has moved to dismiss (Dkt. #9) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff has responded (Dkt. #12) and Defendant has replied (Dkt. #14). The Court will deny Defendant's motion.
A. Background
Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action naming as Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Towers Jail Facility, and Joseph Arpaio (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by (1) overcrowding, (2) unsanitary conditions, and (3) the failure to provide him with an appropriate diet to accommodate his medical condition (Dkt. #1). This Court dismissed Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Towers Jail Facility, and ordered Defendant Arpaio to answer the Complaint (Dkt. # 4).
Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (Dkt. #9). Defendant maintained that Count III should be dismissed without prejudice and that Plaintiff should be allowed to amend his Complaint to limit Counts I and II to exhausted claims (Id. at 6). Attached to the motion were (1) Maricopa County Inmate Grievance Polices, (2) various inmate grievances filed by Plaintiff, and (3) an affidavit of Zelean Tademy, Maricopa County Sheriff's Officer (Dkt. #10). Plaintiff filed several inmate grievances, including the following:
An inmate grievance alleging that Plaintiff suffered from a staph infection due to unsanitary and overcrowded conditions, and that he had to pay a co-pay for the medical treatment. Plaintiff appealed the grievance to the jail commander, stating that he suffered from staph infections and did not believe he should have to pay a medical co-pay. The jail commander responded to Plaintiff's complaint regarding the co-payment. Plaintiff then appealed to the external referee, again grieving the fact that he did not have a choice of providers and had to pay for medical services because his medical problems were the result of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. The external referee responded that the co-pays would be paid according to law and policy, and that there was no evidence to suggest that overcrowding and an unsanitary environment were the cause of his infections. (Dkt. #10, exh. D, tab 2).
Plaintiff filed a Response, arguing that he exhausted his remedies (Dkt. #12). He further asserted that he does not have access to the full policy regarding inmate grievances (Id.). Plaintiff attached copies of various grievances demonstrating his efforts to grieve the issues regarding his diet (Dkt. #12).
Defendant responded by withdrawing his motion as to Count III — the claim concerning Plaintiff's diet (Dkt. # 14). Defendant maintains, however, that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions (Id.). Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff exhausted his claim of being housed without running water, but argues that this issue is so intertwined with Counts I and II that the Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice so that Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint containing only exhausted claims (Id.).
B. 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). The purpose of the exhaustion requirement is to "afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case." Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Porter, 534 U.S. at 525).
"The defendants have the burden of raising and proving a prisoner's failure to exhaust under the PLRA." Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 626 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 647 (2005). 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." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). The 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).
C. Analysis
According to the documents attached to the Motion to Dismiss, an inmate should seek to resolve a conflict through the Maricopa County Jail System's Inmate Grievance Procedures. Specifically, 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 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.
Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated due to (1) overcrowding, (2) unsanitary conditions, and (3) the failure to provide him with an appropriate diet (Dkt. #1). Defendants concede that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies as to Count III.
According to the exhibits introduced by Defendant, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance regarding overcrowding and unsanitary conditions (Dkt. #10, exh D, tab 2 at unnumbered 1). Further, Plaintiff appealed the denial of his grievances to the external referee, who responded by addressing the co-pay issue and finding that there was no evidence to suggest that the jail conditions of overcrowding and unsanitary environment were the cause of his staph infections (Dkt. #10, exh. D, tab 2 at unnumbered 7). Based on this evidence, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance concerning overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. Although the jail commander did not specifically address the issues, the external referee did. Plaintiff thereby afforded Defendant time and an opportunity to address his complaints regarding overcrowding and unsanitary conditions "internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case." See Brown, 422 F.3d at 936. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 9) is denied.