Sanchez #152030 v. Marion et al

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
KAB
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Francisco Sanchez,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Marion, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00564-PHX-JAT (MTM)
ORDER
Plaintiff Francisco Sanchez, who is currently confined in the Arizona State Prison
Complex-Lewis, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending
before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Rule 56(d) Relief (Doc. 26).
I. Background
On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated
an excessive force claim against Defendants Marion and Prater in Count One based on
Plaintiff’s allegations that, while incarcerated in the Pinal County Adult Detention Center
(PCADC), Pod Officer Marion “grabbed [Plaintiff], threw [him] against the wall,
kneed[him] on the side, and threw [him] violently to the ground,” causing Plaintiff to injure
his shoulder and Pod Officer Prater, who was present, did not intervene to stop the assault.
(Docs. 6, 1.) The Court dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants. (Doc. 6.)
II. Motion for Summary Judgment
In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants assert that Plaintiff did not properly
Case 2:25-cv-00564-JAT-MTM Document 31 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
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
exhaust his available administrative remedies.
A. Legal Standards
1. Summary Judgment
A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The
movant bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its motion and identifying
those portions of the record, together with affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
If the movant fails to carry its initial burden of production, the nonmovant need not
produce anything. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Co., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099,
1102-03 (9th Cir. 2000). But if the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden shifts
to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute and that the fact in
contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248, 250 (1986); see Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th
Cir. 1995). The nonmovant need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its
favor, First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968); however,
it must “come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal
citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
At summary judgment, the judge’s function is not to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson,
477 U.S. at 249. In its analysis, the court must believe the nonmovant’s evidence and draw
all inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. Id. at 255. The court need consider only the cited
materials, but it may consider any other materials in the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
. . . .
Case 2:25-cv-00564-JAT-MTM Document 31 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 6

- 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. Exhaustion
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner must exhaust “available”
administrative remedies before filing an action in federal court. 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). The prisoner must complete the administrative review process in
accordance with the applicable rules. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (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).
The defendant bears the initial burden to show that there was an available
administrative remedy and that the prisoner did not exhaust it. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d
1162, 1169, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014); see Brown, 422 F.3d at 936-37 (a defendant must
demonstrate that applicable relief remained available in the grievance process). Once that
showing is made, the burden shifts to the prisoner, who must either demonstrate that he, in
fact, exhausted administrative remedies or “come forward with evidence showing that there
is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available
administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. The
ultimate burden, however, rests with the defendant. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate
if the undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner, shows a
failure to exhaust. Id. at 1166, 1168; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
If summary judgment is denied, disputed factual questions relevant to exhaustion
should be decided by the judge; a plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of
exhaustion. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-71. But if a court finds that the prisoner exhausted
administrative remedies, that administrative remedies were not available, or that the failure
to exhaust administrative remedies should be excused, the case proceeds to the merits. Id.
at 1171.
B. Facts
Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) Standard Operating Procedure 4.3 sets forth
Case 2:25-cv-00564-JAT-MTM Document 31 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 6

- 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
the procedure for detainees incarcerated in PCADC to grieve claims that arise during their
incarceration. (Doc. 22 ¶ 4.) The grievance procedure generally requires a detainee to
complete an Inmate Request Form within 5 days of the incident giving rise to the grievance.
(Id. ¶¶ 16, 19.) The remaining steps in the procedure require the detainee to submit an
Informal Resolution Form, a Formal Grievance Form, an appeal form, and a second-level
appeal form. (Id. ¶¶ 25-45.)
Defendants assert that Plaintiff submitted an Inmate Request Form on December
31, 2024 regarding the October 14, 2021 incident, but it was denied as untimely. (Id. ¶¶
54-55.) Defendants assert they did not receive any other grievance forms from Plaintiff in
relation to the October 14, 2021 incident. (Id. ¶¶ 59-60, 65-67.)
In response to Defendants’ interrogatories, Plaintiff asserted that
on October 14, 2024, . . . he was abused by Officers Marion
and Officer Prater. On October 21, 2024, Plaintiff received a
[sic] Informal Complaint form from Sgt. S. Carrion and
Plaintiff return [sic] the Informal back later that day his
Complaint [sic] to Sgt. Carrion. On October 31, 2024, Plaintiff
received a response back denying his relief. On November 4,
2024, Plaintiff filed his Formal Grievance form given to him
by Sgt. S. Carrion later that same day. On November 22, 2024,
Plaintiff received a responses [sic] to his Formal Grievance. On
November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Grievance Appeal form
given to him by Sgt. S. Carrion later that same day. On
December 19, 2024 Plaintiff received the response to his
Grievance Appeal denying him relief.
(Id. ¶ 63.)
C. Rule 56(d) Request
Plaintiff filed a request for relief pursuant to Rule 56(d) stating that he exhausted
through both written forms and then through transcribing those forms onto the inmate tablet
and he needs to obtain the information from the tablet that Defendants have stored. Plaintiff
also asserts the paper copies of his documents are in his property, but he has been unable
to obtain them.
In Response, Defendants assert that Plaintiff did not identify specific facts in his
Case 2:25-cv-00564-JAT-MTM Document 31 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
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
declaration that he hopes to elicit through further discovery and Plaintiff seeks to obtain
documents from Defendants that Defendants aver do not exist and Plaintiff’s assertion that
he submitted grievance documents through the inmate tablet is impossible because
detainees were unable to electronically submit grievances on inmate tablets in 2004.
Under Rule 56(d), “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for
specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,” the court may
issue any appropriate order, including deferring consideration of the motion for summary
judgment or denying it, or allowing “time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take
discovery.” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(d). The party requesting relief under Rule 56(d) must set
forth in its affidavit or declaration: (1) “specific facts it hopes to elicit from further
discovery,” (2) that “the facts sought exist,” and (3) that “the sought-after facts are essential
to oppose summary judgment.” Family Home & Finance Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan
Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing former Rule 56(f))). “Failure
to comply with these requirements is a proper ground for denying discovery and proceeding
to summary judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff has not met either the procedural or substantive requirements of Rule 56(d).
Plaintiff did not set forth in his affidavit or declaration any of the requirements of Rule
56(d). Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to obtain evidence from Defendants that Defendants do
not have in their possession and seeks to obtain evidence about facts that are in his personal
knowledge and which he can attest to. Additionally, in his response to Defendants’
interrogatories, Plaintiff claims he exhausted, but does not assert that he filed a second level
appeal, indicating that he did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies. As such, even
if Plaintiff were able to obtain copies of the grievances he claims he filed, it is unclear
whether such documents would demonstrate that he exhausted. For all the foregoing
reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion seeking relief pursuant to Rule 56(d) will be denied.
Plaintiff will be required to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment within
14 days of the date of this Order.
Case 2:25-cv-00564-JAT-MTM Document 31 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
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
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Rule 56(d) Relief (Doc. 26).
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 56(d) Relief (Doc. 26) is denied.
(3) Plaintiff must file a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
as stated in Doc. 30.
Dated this 30th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00564-JAT-MTM Document 31 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 6