Galvan v. Arpaio, No. 2:2010cv00125 - Document 16 (D. Ariz. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as follows: (a) granted to the extent that Count II is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (b) denied in all other respects. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/2/10.(TLJ)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Galvan v. Arpaio Doc. 16 1 WO SVK NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 Matthew Lee Galvan, 8 Plaintiff, 9 vs. 10 Joseph M. Arpaio, 11 Defendant. 12 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 10-0125-PHX-GMS (MHB) ORDER 13 14 Plaintiff Matthew Lee Galvan filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 15 against Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff. (Doc. 1.) Defendant moves to dismiss on 16 the grounds that (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to Count II and 17 (2) Plaintiff failed to state a claim in Counts I or II.1 (Doc. 11.) The matter is ready for 18 ruling. (Docs. 14, 15.) The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part. 19 20 I. Background 21 The Complaint alleged two grounds for relief: (1) Plaintiff’s Fifth, Eighth, and 22 Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by Defendant’s policy of feeding inmates 23 insufficient food (Count I); and (2) Plaintiff’s Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment 24 rights were violated by Defendant’s policy of overcrowding intake/booking areas and 25 26 27 28 1 The Court sent Plaintiff the notice required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003), advising Plaintiff of his obligation to respond and the evidence needed to rebut Defendant’s claim. (Doc. 12.) In addition, because it appeared to the Court that Defendant had served Plaintiff at the wrong address, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a copy of the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 13.) Dockets.Justia.com 1 holding cells (Count II). 2 The Court construed Plaintiff’s claims as brought pursuant to the Eighth and 3 Fourteenth Amendments and directed Defendant to answer or otherwise respond. (Doc. 7.) Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 11.) 4 5 6 7 II. Motion to Dismiss A. Legal Standards 1. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 8 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a prisoner may not bring a lawsuit 9 with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 unless all available administrative remedies 10 are exhausted. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th 11 Cir. 2006); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). He must complete the 12 administrative review process in accordance with the applicable rules. See Woodford v. 13 Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). Exhaustion is required for all suits about prison life, 14 Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002), regardless of the type of relief offered through 15 the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). 16 Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 919-21 (2007). 17 Defendant bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v. 18 Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Because exhaustion is a matter of abatement 19 in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, a court may look beyond the pleadings to decide 20 disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. Further, a court has broad discretion as to the method 21 to be used in resolving the factual dispute. 22 Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). 23 2. Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Reconsideration 24 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders 25 of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with 26 a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels 27 Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Rather, reconsideration is appropriate only 28 “in the face of the existence of new evidence, an intervening change in the law, or as -2- 1 necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes of Yakama 2 Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 3 4 B. Parties’ Contentions 1. Defendant 5 Defendant contends that, as to Count II, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative 6 remedies as required by the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Doc. 11 at 2-6.) In support, 7 Defendant submits the declaration of Sergeant Selethia Down, who is assigned to the Inmate 8 Hearing Unit. (Id., Ex. 1, Down Decl. ¶ 1.) Down attests that her duties include receipt, 9 processing, tracking, and storage of inmate grievances. (Id. ¶ 2.) The grievance procedure 10 at the jail is a multi-tiered system that includes: (1) the initial grievance to the line officer and 11 response; (2) review of the grievance by the shift supervisor and response; (3) review of the 12 grievance and decision by the Bureau Hearing Officer; (4) the Institutional appeal to the Jail 13 Commander; and (5) the External appeal. (Id. ¶ 4; Ex. B.) 14 She further attests that according to the Sheriff’s Office records, Plaintiff filed six 15 grievances, two of which concerned overcrowding. (Id. ¶ 7.) One of those grievances—No. 16 09-12955—related to the jail intake cells and the other—No. 09-15788—concerned the 17 holding cells at Mesa Superior Court. (Id.) Mesa Superior Court is not a part of the MCSO 18 Jail system, and MCSO is not responsible for the conditions in the holding cells used by the 19 court. (Id. ¶ 8.) As to grievance No. 09-12955, Down attests the Plaintiff did not appeal his 20 request for relief to the highest level; in fact, it was not appealed beyond the level of Bureau 21 Hearing Officer. (Id. ¶ 10.) Also attached to the motion is a copy of the Inmate Grievance 22 Procedure, Policy DJ-3; Rules and Regulations for Inmates; a sample Inmate Grievance 23 Form; grievances and an Index of Grievances filed by Plaintiff; and a copy of the Complaint. 24 (Id., Exs. A-E.) 25 Defendant also argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim in Count I or Count II. (Doc. 26 11 at 8.) Defendant asserts that in Count I, Plaintiff essentially alleges that jail detainees 27 receive two meals a day and that those meals are not pleasing to Plaintiff. Defendant argues 28 that these allegations do not state a constitutional violation. He notes that Plaintiff also -3- 1 alleges that Arpaio “does this to punish the detainees” but that this allegation is a mere 2 conclusion without supporting allegations that show an intent to punish or that the handling 3 of food service in the jails is not simply a means to operate the jails in a manageable way. 4 (Id.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant personally participated 5 in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and has not properly alleged any facts 6 showing that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of Defendant’s implementation 7 of an official policy. (Id. at 9.) 8 2. Plaintiff 9 Plaintiff submits his response (Doc. 14), including 14 pages of grievances and 10 responses to them. He asserts that he is sending the Court copies of each grievance that he 11 filed relating to anything “that may be crossing the line into violating [his] civil rights.” (Id. 12 at 1.) He further asserts that meals consisted of unknown items, that Defendant attempted 13 to charge inmates for food, and then inmates began receiving “slop.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also 14 states that the intake cells were the dirtiest places he had ever seen. He concludes by saying 15 that he did what he knew to exhaust administrative remedies. (Id. at 3.) 16 In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he exhausted the claims in Count I regarding 17 the meals and was did not appeal to the highest level as to Count II because the appeal was 18 “still in process.” (Doc. 1 at 3, 4.) 3. 19 Reply 20 In his reply, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence to rebut 21 Defendant’s evidence that Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 15 at 2.) 22 Defendant contends that Plaintiff merely provides copies of irrelevant grievances, confirming 23 that Plaintiff did not pursue or exhaust the grievance process, and that the response does not 24 address Defendant’s arguments that Plaintiff failed to allege a constitutional violation. 25 Plaintiff merely reiterates the conclusory allegations made in his Complaint. (Id.) 26 C. Analysis 27 Defendant has met his burden to show that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative 28 remedies regarding his claims in Count II—overcrowding in the intake and holding cells. -4- 1 Defendant provides uncontested evidence of an available grievance procedure and that 2 Plaintiff failed to complete the procedure as to this claim, and Plaintiff does not offer 3 evidence to refute. 4 Plaintiff’s response to the motion includes several grievances and responses but 5 Plaintiff points to nothing showing that he appealed his grievance about the intake cells 6 beyond the level of the Bureau Hearing Officer. “Judges need not paw over the files without 7 assistance from the parties.” Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 775 (9th Cir. 2002) 8 (quoting Huey v. UPS, Inc., 165 F.3d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999). And Plaintiff asserted in 9 his Complaint that he was still in the process of exhausting remedies on this claim. The 10 PLRA mandates that an inmate exhaust remedies before filing a lawsuit; exhausting remedies 11 during the course of the lawsuit does not comply with the requirement. McKinney v. Carey, 12 311 F.3d 1198, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 Nevertheless, the Court has examined the documents provided by Plaintiff, and, 14 although he includes a grievance dated September 20, 2009, that complains about conditions 15 in the intake cells, there is no Institutional grievance appeal or External appeal. Therefore, 16 Plaintiff has failed to refute Defendant’s evidence that Plaintiff did not exhaust his 17 administrative remedies as to the claims in Count II. These claims will be dismissed without 18 prejudice. The court need not consider Defendant’s argument that Count II fails to state a 19 claim. 20 The Court will deny the request to dismiss Count I. Defendant argues that Count I 21 fails to state a claim, but the Court has already screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a), which uses the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6), Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 23 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and found that Count I states a claim against Defendant. As the United 24 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts must “continue to 25 construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 611 F. 3d 1201, 1205 (9th Cir. 2010). A 26 “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal 27 pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per 28 curiam)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). -5- 1 A Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is almost never appropriate after the 2 complaint has been screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and is essentially a motion for 3 reconsideration, which should be granted only in rare circumstances. See Defenders of 4 Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351. Defendant has presented insufficient grounds for this Court 5 to reconsider its ruling that Count I states a claim. The Court notes that Plaintiff alleged that 6 the issues with the food were pursuant to policy set by Defendant. That is sufficient to allege 7 personal involvement. See Ortez v. Washington County, Or., 88 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 8 1996). And, as stated, pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Hebbe, 611 F. 3d at 1205. 9 IT IS ORDERED: 10 (1) 11 part as follows: 12 (a) 13 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is granted in part and denied in granted to the extent that Count II is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (b) 14 denied in all other respects. 15 (2) The remaining claim is Count I. 16 DATED this 2nd day of November, 2010. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
