Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04002/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04002-3/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

Ulises Marquez Majalca, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-4002-PHX-SMM (ECV)

ORDER

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

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #8). Plaintiff filed a combination response and

application for default (Doc. #11). Defendant responded to the application for default and

replied to Plaintiff’s response (Doc. ##12, 14). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for

default and grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

I. The Exhaustion Requirement

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,

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). 

Case 2:05-cv-04002-SMM-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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 -

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. Wyatt, 315 F.3d 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). 

II. Procedural Background

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the Maricopa County jails were overcrowded,

the meals were inadequate, and the medical care was inadequate (Doc. #1 at 4-6). For each

of his counts, he admitted that he did not complete the grievance process, but asserted that

“[t]his is not a grievable issue” (Id.).

Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio moved to dismiss, contending that

Plaintiff did not grieve any of his claims in the available process and one of his claims was

time-barred (Doc. #8). In support, Defendant submits a copy of the jail’s internal grievance

process and a copy of the Rules and Regulations provided to inmates describing the process

(Exs. 1A & 1C, Doc. #8). Also attached is the affidavit of Sergeant Tademy, who tracks

grievances and attests that Plaintiff did not file any during the time he was in custody at the

jail (Tademy Aff. ¶¶ 1-2, 10-11, Ex. 1, Doc. #8).

The Court issued an Order informing Plaintiff about his rights and obligations to

respond to the motion (Doc. #9). The Order specifically informed Plaintiff that if Defendant

produced admissible evidence showing that he failed to exhaust, Plaintiff’s action would be

dismissed unless he produced admissible evidence to show that he exhausted (Id. at 2).

Plaintiff was required to respond by August 21, 2006, and he filed a combination

response and application for default, which he entitled: “Motion: Applying for Default of

Judgment. See Rule 55(a). Response to Due Date 8-21-2006” (Doc. #11). He did not

explain the basis for the default and instead, set forth one paragraph claiming that he was told

that he could not have the forms to start the grievance process because his claims were not

Case 2:05-cv-04002-SMM-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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 -

grievable issues (Id.). He stated that he can provide witnesses, but he did not name them nor

describe their testimony (Id.). He asserted that he can obtain records to “show a pattern of

jail officials preventing the grievance process with deliberate indifference” (Id.). 

Defendant responded that default is inappropriate because they have pleaded or

otherwise defended by moving for dismissal (Doc. #12). Defendant replied that Plaintiff did

not identify the officers who told him that his claim was not grievable nor describe the

circumstances, that Plaintiff did not attempt to obtain a grievance form from a shift

supervisor, hearing officer or jail commander, and that Plaintiff did not identify his witnesses

or their testimony (Doc. #14 at 2, 4). 

III. Analysis

A. Default

Plaintiff seeks default judgment, and he cites Rule 55(a) but does not set forth any

contentions regarding why he believes Defendant is in default. It is plain from the record,

however, that Defendant did not timely serve his Motion to Dismiss. The motion was filed

on July 18, 2006, but was due by April 29, 2006 if served by mail (Doc. ##6, 8). See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6(e), 12(a), (b). Plaintiff, however, has not contended why entry of default is

appropriate. Default judgments are disfavored, as cases should be decided on their merits.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). The “good cause” under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 55(b) to set aside entry default includes consideration of whether defendant’s culpable

conduct led to the default, whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and whether

there is prejudice to the plaintiff. TCI Group Life In. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696

(9th Cir. 2001). There is no evidence that Defendant’s delay was culpable, and Plaintiff has

not argued that he was prejudiced by the untimeliness of Defendant’s motion. Defendant has

presented a potentially meritorious defense of the absence of exhaustion. Accordingly, the

Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default.

B. Exhaustion

As stated, Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating what remedies are

“available.” See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119; Brown, 422 F.3d at 936-37. Defendant has

Case 2:05-cv-04002-SMM-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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 -

demonstrated that the jail has a grievance system and that inmates are informed about the

system in the Rules and Regulations provided to them during the booking process (Tademy

Aff. ¶¶ 4-7). Defendant has also shown that inmates are not limited in the types of issues that

may be grieved (Id. ¶ 9). 

Plaintiff asserted that he was not provided with forms, and he was told that his issues

were not grievable. It is true that when prison employees refuse to provide forms when

requested, the inmate does not have any “available” remedy. See Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d

652, 656-57 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); accord Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d

Cir. 2003); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001). The difficulty with

Plaintiff’s allegations, however, are that they are too general. He has not named the persons

who allegedly refused to provide him with a grievance form for each of his three counts for

relief. It is unclear whether it was the same person or whether different persons were

involved. 

Also, Plaintiff has indicated that he has witnesses, but he has not submitted testimony

from any of them nor has he stated that he needed additional time to obtain their testimony.

Plaintiff received ample warning that he was required to submit evidence showing that he

exhausted the remedies that were available (Doc. #9). See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1114 n. 6 (the

district court bears the responsibility of ensuring that a pro se litigant receives fair notice of

the requirements in responding to a dispositive motion). His failure to submit any evidence

after being warned about his obligation to do so and his failure to request additional time to

obtain discovery is fatal to his position. Compare Taylor v. List, 880 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989) (summary judgment “cannot be defeated by relying solely on conclusory

allegations unsupported by factual data”). The Court finds that Defendant has carried his

burden of showing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available remedies. Given the lack of

exhaustion, the Court declines to reach the time-bar issue. Accordingly, the Court will grant

Defendant’s motion.

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:05-cv-04002-SMM-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. #11) is denied.

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #8) is granted. The Clerk of Court must

enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice.

DATED this 19th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-04002-SMM-ECV Document 16 Filed 10/20/06 Page 5 of 5