Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01144/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01144-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Troy Solomon, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CV-06-1144-PHX-PGR (LOA)

)

Andrew Kunasek, et al., ) BRIEFING SCHEDULE

)

Defendants ) )

On September 27, 2006, Defendants Kunasek, Wilcox, Arpaio and Clifton

filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for

failure to exhaust prison administrative remedies as mandated by 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a).

 Plaintiff is advised of the following provisions of Rule 7.2(i), LRCiv, Rules of Practice

of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, effective December 1,

2005:

If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with

the requirements of this Local Rule, or if the opposing party

does not serve and file the required answering memoranda,

or if counsel for any party fails to appear at the time and

place assigned for oral argument, such non-compliance may

be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion

and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.

It is plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all motions. The failure

of plaintiff to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss may in the discretion of the

court be deemed a consent to the granting of that motion without further notice, and

judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint and action with prejudice

pursuant to Rule 7.2(i), LRCiv., Rules of Practice of the United States District Court

Case 2:06-cv-01144-PGR-LOA Document 15 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 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

for the District of Arizona. See, Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994). This

means the case is over.

 If Defendants' Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of your Complaint for your

failure to exhaust all available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C

§1997e(a), the Court may consider sworn declarations or other admissible documentary

evidence beyond your Complaint. Moreover, if Defendants produce admissible evidence

demonstrating that you failed to exhaust your administrative remedies, your Complaint

will be dismissed without prejudice unless you produce copies of your grievances and

grievance appeals or other admissible evidence sufficient to show that you did exhaust

all available administrative remedies. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. That plaintiff shall have until November 15, 2006 within which to

respond to defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

2. That defendant shall have until December 12, 2006 within which to file

a reply.

3. That the motion shall be deemed to be ready for decision without oral

argument on the day following the date set for filing the reply unless otherwise ordered

by the Court.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01144-PGR-LOA Document 15 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2