Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00548/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00548-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian Michael Chavez, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et al., 

Defendants. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-548 PHX JAT (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, this case was referred to the

Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. Pending

before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to Exhaust Administrative

Remedies [Docket No. 14] filed by Defendant Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Joe

Arpaio, and Captain Peters. For the reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court, after independent review of the record, grant the pending

motion. 

A. Background

Plaintiff filed pro se the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on February 16, 2005, alleging that the Durango Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, is severely

overcrowded and that the living conditions are unsanitary. On August 15, 2005, Defendants

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Joe Arpaio and Captain Peters have filed a motion

to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff has not

responded to the motion.

Case 2:05-cv-00548-JAT Document 15 Filed 11/23/05 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

The administrative process that the Defendant contends has not been exhausted is the

Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy Number DJ-3, which is attached to the Defendant's

Motion as Exhibit 2A. The Grievance Procedure describes three levels of redress. First, the

inmate must submit a Grievance Form to a detention officer for resolution by the officer, shift

supervisor, or hearing officer. Second, if an inmate decides to appeal, he is provided an

Institutional Grievance Appeal Form which is submitted to the jail commander. Third, if the

inmate remains dissatisfied, he is informed of the right to pursue an External Grievance

Appeal to be decided by an external referee. Inmate Grievance Procedure, ¶¶ 1-7. Only

upon conclusion of this procedure is the inmate permitted to file a complaint in the Federal

District Court. Id., ¶ 8. In this case, Plaintiff admits and the records to the Maricopa County

Sheriff's Office reflect that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. 

B. Discussion

1. Failure to Respond

The docket reflects that Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss and

that he has not provided a change of address. In Judge Teilborg's order dated May 19, 2005,

Plaintiff was warned that the failure to file a Notice of Change of Address "may result in the

dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure." Additionally, Local Rule Civil 7.2(i) provides that a plaintiff's failure

to timely respond to a motion "may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion

and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." LRCiv. 7.2(i).

2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense as to which defendants have the burden of proof,

and is properly raised in an "unenumerated" Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss rather than in a

motion for summary judgment. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).

In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the Court may

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. See id. at 1119-20.

Case 2:05-cv-00548-JAT Document 15 Filed 11/23/05 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

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA") amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to

provide that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C.

§ 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other

correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." See

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This exhaustion requirement is mandatory and not merely directory.

See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted and

those remedies "need not meet federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and

effective.'" See id. Exhaustion is a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison

life, whether such actions involve general conditions or particular episodes, whether they

allege excessive force or some other wrong, and even if they seek relief not available in

grievance proceedings, such as money damages. See id. at 988, 992; Booth v. Churner, 532

U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

Here, inmate grievance records for the Plaintiff indicated that he did not file any

external appeals or grievances during the time he was housed in the Maricopa County jail

system. Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 2, ¶ 4. As such, the Defendants have satisfied their

burden to establish that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in relation

to his claims. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). 

C. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District

Court, after its independent review, issue an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss [Docket

No. 14] filed by Defendants Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Joe Arpaio, and Captain

Peters, and dismissing this matter without prejudice. 

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

Case 2:05-cv-00548-JAT Document 15 Filed 11/23/05 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

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 05-548-PHXJAT. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00548-JAT Document 15 Filed 11/23/05 Page 4 of 4