Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01455/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01455-1/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charlie Medina, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1455-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

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

(Doc. #6) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff failed to respond. The Court will grant

Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio,

MCSO Medical Staff, and Andrew Kunaseth, member of the Maricopa Board of Supervisors,

violated his constitutional rights through deliberate indifference to his medical needs and

unsanitary conditions (Doc. #1). The Court dismissed Medical Staff and Kunaseth and

Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference to his medical needs (Doc. #3). The Court

ordered Arpaio to answer Plaintiff’s claims of unsanitary conditions (Id.). Arpaio

subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies (Doc. #6). Attached to the motion were (1) an affidavit of Sergeant

Case 2:06-cv-01455-MHM-ECV Document 9 Filed 02/14/07 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 -

Zelean Tademy, a Hearing Officer for inmate discipline and grievances, and (2) the Maricopa

County Inmate Grievance Procedures (Id.). 

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. #7) Despite these

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

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

granting of it, out of an abundance of caution, the merits of Defendant’s motion 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.), cert denied 127 S.Ct. 232 (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

Case 2:06-cv-01455-MHM-ECV Document 9 Filed 02/14/07 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 -

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). 

 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). 

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. #6, ex. 1 attach. A). Tademy attested that during

his incarceration, Plaintiff filed five grievances complaining about his medical care (Id., ex.

1). Plaintiff, however, filed no external appeals (Id.).

Defendant has demonstrated the existence of a grievance system of which Plaintiff

failed to avail himself. Plaintiff indicated in his Complaint that he was informed his issues

were not grievable (Doc. #1). However, Plaintiff did file grievances and thus was aware of

the grievance system and how to utilize it. Plaintiff’s statement in his Complaint is

insufficient to support a conclusion that Plaintiff was “reliably informed” that there were no

available remedies. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01455-MHM-ECV Document 9 Filed 02/14/07 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 that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6) is 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 12th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01455-MHM-ECV Document 9 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 4