Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01571/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01571-1/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 LMH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark F. Baca, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1571-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a former county jail inmate, Defendant Arpaio

moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #15). Plaintiff failed to respond, and

Defendant moved for summary dismissal (Doc. #17). After careful review of these pleadings

and the record, the Court will grant the motions and dismiss the action without prejudice.

I. Exhaustion

Plaintiff must first exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing this

action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Vaden v. Summerhill, No. 05-15650, ___ F.3d ___, 2006

WL 1529029, at *2 (9th Cir. June 6, 2006); Roles v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016, 1017 (9th Cir.

2006). Exhaustion is required regarding 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). Defendants bear the burden of raising and

proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003);

see also 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 Rule 12(b)

Case 2:05-cv-01571-MHM-MEA Document 19 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

motion and may look beyond the pleadings to decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315 F.3d

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) (quotation omitted). 

 In this action, Plaintiff brought a verified Complaint containing three counts for relief

about overcrowded conditions and food that was often unfit for consumption. For each of

his counts, Plaintiff checked several “yes” boxes to indicate Counts I through III were raised

through all levels of the jail’s administrative remedies (Doc. #1 at 4-6). The Court ordered

Defendant Arpaio to answer the Complaint (Doc. #8). 

 Defendant Arpaio moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion, relying upon the affidavit

of Sergeant Zelean Tademy, a Hearing Officer for inmate discipline and grievances. Tademy

asserts that Plaintiff did not file any grievances, Institutional Appeals, or External Appeals

on any of the issues in his Complaint. (Tademy Aff.,¶ 11, Ex. A, Doc. #15). 

Plaintiff was issued an Order containing the customary warnings regarding his

obligation to respond and the potential consequences for failing to do so (Doc. #16). Yet,

he failed to respond. Plaintiff’s bare assertion of exhaustion in his verified Complaint is

unsupported by any evidence, such as copies of the grievances Plaintiff claimed to have filed.

Defendant’s contention, supported by Tademy’s affidavit, that Plaintiff failed to file any

grievances has not been satisfactorily rebutted by Plaintiff. On this record, Defendant has

met his burden of demonstrating the absence of exhaustion, and the Court will grant his

motion to dismiss.

II. Lack of a Response

Defendant Arpaio also moved the Court to summarily grant their motion to dismiss

because Plaintiff failed to respond. The Court has the discretion to deem Plaintiff’s lack of

response as consent to Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules

of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was warned of this possibility. See Order, Doc. #16. 

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

Case 2:05-cv-01571-MHM-MEA Document 19 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

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, (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 was transferred from the county jail to the state prison (Doc. #9) and apparently lost

interest in prosecuting his action about conditions at the jail. There is no risk of prejudice

to Defendant to resolve the motion in their 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, there is a less drastic sanction that is

available: dismissal without prejudice. 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 that Defendant Arpaio’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #15) and motion

for summary dismissal (Doc. #17) are granted. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without

prejudice for lack of exhaustion or alternately, for failure to respond. The Clerk of Court

shall enter a judgment of dismissal accordingly.

DATED this 20st day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01571-MHM-MEA Document 19 Filed 06/22/06 Page 3 of 3