Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02798/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02798-0/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

1

Upon screening, the Court dismissed the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Gerrard

Sheridan as Defendants, and Counts I and V (Doc. #4).

JDN

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jemia Underwood, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2798-PHX-DGC (VAM) 

ORDER

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

moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #8). Plaintiff failed to respond. The Court

will grant Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff sued Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and alleged that his constitutional rights were

violated by inadequate food and overcrowding at the jail (Doc. #1). Plaintiff also alleged that

he was denied the free exercise of religion during his confinement 1

 (Id. at 6A). The Court

ordered an answer, and Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. ##4, 8). The Court issued

an order informing Plaintiff of his obligation to respond and the quantum of evidence

necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s contentions (Doc. #9). Plaintiff did not file a

response. The time for responding has expired, and the motion is ready for ruling. 

Case 2:05-cv-02798-DGC-VAM Document 11 Filed 10/12/06 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 -

In support of his motion, Defendant submitted the affidavit of Zelean Tademy, a

Sergeant assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit (Doc. #8). Tademy attests that inmates may

grieve all issues pertaining to conditions of confinement, and that detention officers pass out

grievances as part of their daily duties (Tademy Aff. ¶ 4). According to the sheriff’s office

records, Plaintiff filed two grievances during his confinement at the jail, neither of which are

related to the claims in this action (Id. ¶ 7). In addition to the affidavit, Defendant submitted

a copy of the Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy DJ-3, and two pages from the “Rules and

Regulations for Inmates” (Exs. A-B, Doc. #8). 

II. Failure to Respond

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that if a party files a motion to dismiss,

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 and the Court

may dispose of the motion summarily.” 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). 

 After Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss, the Court informed Plaintiff of his

obligation to respond to the motion, and that the failure to respond may “be deemed a consent

to the granting of that Motion” (Doc. #9). Despite these warnings, Plaintiff failed to respond

to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s failure to respond will be construed as a consent to the

granting of the motion. The merits of Defendant’s motion will also be addressed.

III. Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff must first exhaust “available” administrative remedies before bringing this

action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.

2006); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). He must complete the

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable rules. See Woodford v.

Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). Exhaustion is required for all suits about prison life,

Case 2:05-cv-02798-DGC-VAM Document 11 Filed 10/12/06 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 -

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). 

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). 

IV. Analysis

Defendant submitted evidence that a grievance system is available at the jail for

Plaintiff’s claims (Tademy Aff. ¶ 4; Exs. A-B, Doc. #8). Plaintiff conceded in his Complaint

that he failed to appeal his claims to the highest level. Plaintiff explained that he did not

appeal his grievances because he was either threatened with disciplinary segregation or

retaliation, or jail staff had a way of “losing” Plaintiff’s paperwork (Doc. #1 at 5-6A). But

Plaintiff does not specify his attempts to appeal; he only provides general allegations that he

was threatened by unidentified staff (Id.). Plaintiff has not alleged exactly what transpired

for each of his three Counts. In his explanation for why he did not appeal his claims to the

highest level, Plaintiff refers to an “Exhibit A,” but there is no Exhibit A attached to his

Complaint. Without more specific allegations, Plaintiff cannot overcome Defendant’s

evidence showing that an appeal system was available at the jail for Plaintiff’s claims. 

Defendant proffered evidence to sufficiently rebut Plaintiff’s claim that inmates are

prohibited from appealing grievances (Exs. A-B, Doc. #8). In failing to respond to the

motion, Plaintiff has presented nothing to support a conclusion that he availed himself of the

opportunity to exhaust. Based on the evidence before the Court, Plaintiff failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies, and Defendant’s motion will be granted.

Case 2:05-cv-02798-DGC-VAM Document 11 Filed 10/12/06 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. #8) 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 October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02798-DGC-VAM Document 11 Filed 10/12/06 Page 4 of 4