Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03584/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03584-0/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marcelo Lopez-Gutierrez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3584-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendant moved to dismiss

(Doc. #8) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff has failed to respond. After careful review of

these pleadings and the record, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint alleging that Defendants Maricopa

County Sheriff’s Office and Joseph M. Arpaio violated his constitutional rights due to

(1) overcrowding, (2) unsanitary conditions, and (3) deliberate indifference to his medical

needs (Doc. #1). Defendant Arpaio was ordered to answer the Complaint, and he

subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies (Docs. ##5, 8). Attached to the motion were (1) the Maricopa

County Inmate Grievance Procedures and (2) an affidavit by Sergeant Zelean Tademy, a

Hearing Officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (Doc. #8).

Case 2:05-cv-03584-SMM-LOA Document 11 Filed 10/11/06 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 -

II. Failure to Respond

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that if a party files a motion to dismiss,

and this Court orders a response, and “the opposing party does not serve and file the required

answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting

of the motion.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (providing that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants’ motion to

dismiss pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff had time to respond to the motion but

failed to do so). Moreover, “[p]ursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), [this Court]

may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the [C]ourt.” Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). 

 After Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff was provided notice of that

motion, advised of his obligation to respond to the motion, and informed that the failure to

respond may “be deemed a consent to the granting of that Motion” (Doc. #9). Despite these

warnings, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss may be construed as a consent to the

granting of it. However, out of an abundance of caution, the merits of Defendant’s Motion

to Dismiss will be addressed.

III. Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss

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). To be

“properly exhausted,” the prisoner “must complete the administrative review process in

accordance with the applicable rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit

in federal court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 

Case 2:05-cv-03584-SMM-LOA Document 11 Filed 10/11/06 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 -

 Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 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.” Id. at 1119-20. 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). The proper

remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

IV. Analysis

An inmate should seek to resolve a conflict through the Maricopa County Jail

System’s Inmate Grievance Procedures. 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 unresolved 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 (Doc. #8, ex. 1).

For a medical grievance, the Hearing Officer promptly forwards the complaint to the

charge nurse, who will respond to the inmate. The inmate may appeal the charge nurse’s

decision by filing an External Grievance Appeal, which is forwarded to the Contracted

Health Services Legal Liaison. The Legal Liaison’s decision is final (Doc. #8, ex. 1).

Tademy attested that Plaintiff had not filed any grievances, institutional appeals, or external

appeals prior to filing the instant Complaint (Id., ex. 2)

Defendant demonstrated that there exists a grievance system to which Plaintiff failed

to avail himself. In his Complaint, Plaintiff stated that detention officers told him that his

“request did not warrant a grievance” (Doc. #1 at 6). However, Plaintiff’s statement

regarding what unidentified detention officers told him does not support a conclusion that

Plaintiff was “reliably informed” that there were no available remedies. Brown v. Valoff,

Case 2:05-cv-03584-SMM-LOA Document 11 Filed 10/11/06 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 -

422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be

granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

#8). Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. The Clerk of

Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal accordingly.

DATED this 11th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03584-SMM-LOA Document 11 Filed 10/11/06 Page 4 of 4