Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00742/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00742-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

RAYMOND SAGER, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

JOSEPH ARPAIO,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0742 PHX MHM (MEA)

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Arpaio’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. #11).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint (Doc.

#11) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 8, 2005. On July

6, 2005, the Court ordered Defendant to answer Plaintiff’s

allegation that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment rights while Plaintiff was detained in the Maricopa

County Durango jail, by failing to provide Plaintiff with an

adequate diet and by subjecting him to overcrowded and

unsanitary living conditions. (Doc. #6). 

Case 2:05-cv-00742-MHM-MEA Document 14 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 6
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 was served and filed an answer (Doc. #9) to the

complaint on September 15, 2005. On September 28, 2005,

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1997e for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his

administrative remedies regarding the claims stated in the

complaint. 

 In an order (Doc. #12) issued October 6, 2005,

Plaintiff was warned by the Court that his failure to respond

to the motion to dismiss within thirty days could be deemed

consent to the entry of judgment against Plaintiff, pursuant

to Rule 7.2, United States District Court for the District of

Arizona Local Rules of Civil Procedure. As of November 28,

2005, Plaintiff has not responded to or filed any pleading

otherwise opposing Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard for granting motion to dismiss

When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must take the

factual allegations of the complaint as true and construe them

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Galbraith

v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002);

Epstein v. Washington Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.

1996). Additionally, pro se complaints are held to a less

strict standard than those drafted by counsel. See Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976). It is

not appropriate to dismiss a pro se prisoner’s civil rights

action unless it is “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove

Case 2:05-cv-00742-MHM-MEA Document 14 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 6
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 -

no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.” Id.

B. Exhaustion

Exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) is governed by 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a). This statute provides that “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983

of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility

until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2003 & Supp. 2005). This

language has been interpreted to require “that an inmate must

exhaust [available remedies] irrespective of the forms of

relief sought and offered through administrative avenues.”

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, n.6 (2001). The

exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about

prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or

particular episodes.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532

(2002). 

A plaintiff must fully exhaust his administrative

remedies before filing a section 1983 complaint. McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002). To fully

exhaust a section 1983 claim, a prisoner must pursue his

grievance to the highest administrative level available to

him. See Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720, 726 (6th Cir. 2003);

Harper v. Jenkin, 179 F.3d 1311, 1312 (11th Cir. 1999); Morgan

v. Maricopa County, 259 F. Supp. 2d 985, 990-91 & n.13 (D.

Ariz. 2003). Exhaustion is an affirmative defense;

Case 2:05-cv-00742-MHM-MEA Document 14 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 6
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 -

establishing exhaustion of administrative remedies under the

PLRA is not a pleading requirement or a jurisdictional

prerequisite. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 50 (2003); Giano v. Goord, 380

F.3d 670, 675 (2d Cir. 2004). Therefore, Defendant has “the

burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.”

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. The failure to exhaust

administrative remedies under the PLRA is treated as a matter

in abatement and is properly raised in an unenumerated Rule

12(b) motion. Id. “In deciding a motion to dismiss for a

failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id.

at 1119-20. “If the district court concludes that the

prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper

remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Id. at

1120.

Detainees complaining about the conditions encountered at

a Maricopa County jail facility may pursue an administrative

grievance in accordance with the three-step process outlined

in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedure

manual. DOC. #11, Exh. A. The inmate first files a grievance

which is heard by a shift supervisor. The inmate may appeal

an adverse decision by the shift supervisor by filing an

Institutional Grievance Appeal, which is determined by a jail

commander. The third step in the process is to file an

External Grievance Appeal regarding any adverse decision by

the jail commander. Id., Exh. A.

Case 2:05-cv-00742-MHM-MEA Document 14 Filed 12/16/05 Page 4 of 6
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 -

The evidence presented by Defendant establishes that

administrative remedies were available to Plaintiff and that

Plaintiff failed to properly pursue his administrative

remedies with regard to the claims stated in his complaint,

i.e. his claims regarding unsanitary and overcrowded living

conditions and jail food, prior to filing his section 1983

complaint. 

Additionally, Rule 7.2, United States District Court for

the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that a party’s failure to respond to a motion may, in

the Court’s discretion, be deemed a consent to the Court’s

granting of judgment in favor of the movant. See Brydges v.

Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). When the Court

has warned the non-moving part that their failure to respond

“‘shall constitute a consent’” to the granting of the motion,

the Court may properly exercise its discretion to a motion

based on the non-moving party’s construed consent. Id. See

also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion

by summarily granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss

pursuant to a local rule where the pro se plaintiff had time

to respond to the motion but failed to do so). 

Defendant has asserted Plaintiff has not exhausted his

administrative remedies, a prerequisite to filing his suit.

Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s assertion that he has

failed to fulfill a prerequisite to filing his section 1983

complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts

which establish that he has stated a claim for relief.

Case 2:05-cv-00742-MHM-MEA Document 14 Filed 12/16/05 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

Conclusion

Plaintiff has failed to allege or to show that he has

exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his claim

regarding jail overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions.

Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to object to Defendant’s

motion to dismiss although Plaintiff was warned that his

failure to do so would result in dismissal of his claims. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. #11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is

hereby dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to the claim

for relief stated in his complaint.

DATED this 15th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00742-MHM-MEA Document 14 Filed 12/16/05 Page 6 of 6