Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02386/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02386-4/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

Ulyess Kelvin Brewster, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2386-PHX-RCB (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ulyess Kelvin Brewster, who is currently confined in the Arizona

Department of Corrections (ADC), filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 regarding events occurring at the Maricopa County Jail. (Doc. 7.) On screening, the

Court directed Defendant to answer the First Amended Complaint, which alleged

unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Maricopa County Durango facility. (Docs.

7, 8.) Defendant now moves to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as

required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). (Doc. 17.) Although the Court

issued a Notice pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003),

advising Plaintiff of his obligation to respond, Plaintiff filed no response. (Doc. 18.)

The Court will grant the motion and terminate the action.

II. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

A. Legal Standard

Under the PLRA, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before

Case 2:10-cv-02386-RCB Document 20 Filed 07/20/11 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 -

bringing a federal action concerning prison conditions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Griffin

v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). 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). And a

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 an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212 (2007). Thus,

the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Because exhaustion is a matter of abatement

in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, a court may look beyond the pleadings to decide

disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. Further, a 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) (quotation omitted).

B. Parties’ Contentions

1. Defendants

In support of their motion, Defendant submits the affidavit of Selethia Down, a

sergeant in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) Hearing Unit. (Doc. 14, Ex. 1,

Down Aff. ¶ 3.)

Down attests that her duties include receipt, processing, tracking, and storage of

inmate grievances. (Id.) The grievance procedure at the jail is a multi-tiered system that

includes: (1) the initial grievance to the line officer and response; (2) review of the grievance

by the shift supervisor and response; (3) review of the grievance and decision by a Bureau

Hearing Officer; (4) the Institutional appeal to the Jail commander; and (5) the External

appeal. (Id. ¶¶ 6-13.) Down asserts that there are no restrictions on the types of grievances

allowed and that inmates may grieve conditions of confinement. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 17.) She further

attests that according to the MCSO records, Plaintiff filed no grievances regarding conditions

or overcrowding in holding cells or dirty and unsanitary conditions in holding cells. (Id.

¶ 17.)

Case 2:10-cv-02386-RCB Document 20 Filed 07/20/11 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 -

Defendant argues that the evidence shows that Plaintiff did not file grievances about

the matters raised in the First Amended Complaint and therefore he did not exhaust his

administrative remedies. (Doc. 17 at 4.)

2. Plaintiff

As noted, Plaintiff filed no response. Although he asserted in his First Amended

Complaint that he exhausted administrative remedies as to the claims raised, he submitted

no documents demonstrating exhaustion. (Doc. 7.)

C. Analysis

The Court will grant Defendant’s motion. Defendant has provided evidence that there

were remedies available to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the claims in the First

Amended Complaint. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119; see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926,

936-37 (2005). 

Plaintiff was issued an Order containing the customary warnings regarding his

obligation to respond and the potential consequences for failing to do so. (Doc. 18.) He was

specifically informed that if Defendant showed that he failed to exhaust, his action would be

dismissed unless he produced controverting evidence. (Id. at 2.) 

 Because Plaintiff failed to respond, he did not rebut Defendant’s evidence that

Plaintiff did not file any grievances while in custody. Plaintiff’s allegations in his First

Amended Complaint do not alter this determination or suggest that administrative remedies

were not available to Plaintiff. On this record, Defendant has met his burden of

demonstrating the absence of exhaustion, and the Court will grant his motion to dismiss.

III. Lack of a Response

Alternately, the Court has the discretion under Rule 7.2(I) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure to deem Plaintiff’s lack of response as consent to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff was warned of this possibility. (Doc. 18 at 2.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

has upheld a dismissal based on a failure to comply with a similar local rule in the District

of Nevada. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). Before dismissal on

this basis, the court must weigh (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,

Case 2:10-cv-02386-RCB Document 20 Filed 07/20/11 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 -

(2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less

drastic sanctions. Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

1986)). If the court does not consider these factors, the record may be reviewed

independently on appeal for abuse of discretion. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

The first three factors do not favor Plaintiff, particularly in light of the fact that

Plaintiff has apparently lost interest in prosecuting his action. There is no risk of prejudice

to Defendant to resolve the motion in his favor, and judicial efficiency also favors resolution

of this action. The fourth factor of favoring disposition of cases on their merits weighs in

favor of Plaintiff, and for the fifth factor, dismissal without prejudice is the least drastic

sanction. In light of the overall five-factor analysis weighing in Defendant’s favor, the Court

will deem Plaintiff’s lack of a response as a consent and dismiss the action without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 17). 

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) is granted. Plaintiff’s action is

dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion or alternately, for failure to respond. The

Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02386-RCB Document 20 Filed 07/20/11 Page 4 of 4