Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02076/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02076-3/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

BL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose R. Miranda, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2076-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendants have moved to

dismiss (Dkt. #9) for lack of exhaustion and for summary disposition (Dkt. #12). Plaintiff

has failed to respond. After careful review of these pleadings and the record, the Court will

grant Defendants’ motions. 

A. Background

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that

Defendants Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Joseph M. Arpaio, and Captain Peterson

violated his constitutional rights due to (1) overcrowding, (2) unsanitary conditions, and

(3) the food preparation facility (Dkt. #1). This Court ordered the Defendants to answer the

Complaint, and they subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkts. ## 5, 9). In the Motion

to Dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (Dkt.

#9). Attached to the motion was (1) an affidavit of Zelean Tademy, a Maricopa County

Hearing Officer for inmate grievances and discipline and (2) the Maricopa County Inmate

Grievance Procedures (Id.). Plaintiff failed to respond, and the Defendants subsequently

filed a Motion to Summarily Grant the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #12).

Case 2:05-cv-02076-DGC-DKD Document 14 Filed 06/14/06 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 -

B. 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 and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” 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 Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff was provided notice of that

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

respond may “be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion.” (Dkt. #11) Despite

these warnings, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss will be construed as a

consent to the granting of it. However, out of an abundance of caution, the merits of

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be addressed.

C. 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). 

 “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

Case 2:05-cv-02076-DGC-DKD Document 14 Filed 06/14/06 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 -

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).

The proper remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal

of the claim without prejudice.” Id. at 1120; see also Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170

(9th Cir. 2005).

D. 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

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. Tademy attested that Plaintiff has not filed any inmate grievances

as to the issues raised in his Complaint (Dkt. #9, exh. A).

Defendants have demonstrated that there exists a grievance system which was made

available to the Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff, failing to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, has

presented nothing to support a conclusion that he availed himself of that system. Plaintiff

stated in his Complaint that “detention officers tell me that my request does not warrant a

grievance” and “officers say this is not a grievance (sic) reason.” However, Plaintiff’s

allegation regarding statements that unknown and unnamed detention officers made at some

unknown time is insufficient to support an allegation that Plaintiff was “reliably informed”

that there were no available remedies. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir.

2005). Accordingly, based on the evidence before this Court, Plaintiff failed to exhausted

his administrative remedies, and Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary ruling will

be granted.

Case 2:05-cv-02076-DGC-DKD Document 14 Filed 06/14/06 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 -

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Ruling (Dkt. #12).

(2) Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. #9) and for Summary Ruling (Dkt. #12) are

granted. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. The Clerk

of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal accordingly.

DATED this 13th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02076-DGC-DKD Document 14 Filed 06/14/06 Page 4 of 4