Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02075/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02075-1/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

BL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roberto Mendoza, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2075-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

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

dismiss (Dkt. #6) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff has failed to respond. After careful review

of these pleadings and the record, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion. 

A. Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint naming as a Defendant Joseph Arpaio, alleging that his

constitutional rights were violated by (1) an improper diet, (2) overcrowding, and

(3) unsanitary conditions (Dkt. #1). This Court ordered Defendant Arpaio to answer the

Complaint, and he subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkts. ## 3, 6). In the Motion to

Dismiss, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust available administrative

remedies (Dkt. #6). Attached to the motion was (1) a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint,

(2) Corina Griffin’s, a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Hearing Officer for inmate

discipline and grievances, affidavit, (3) the Maricopa County Jail Inmate Grievances

Procedures, and (4) examples of grievances filed by other inmates (Id.).

Case 2:05-cv-02075-DGC-DKD Document 10 Filed 05/16/06 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 -

B. 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 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). 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, was advised of his obligation to respond, and was informed that the failure to

respond may “be deemed a consent to the granting of that Motion.” (Dkt. #7) Despite these

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

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

granting of it. However, out of an abundance of caution, the merits of Defendant’s Motion

to Dismiss will be addressed.

C. Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, “[a]ll allegations of material fact in the complaint are

taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Dismissal of the

complaint is appropriate only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim which would entitle him to relief.” McGary v. City of

Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1261 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559,

563 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005).

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

Case 2:05-cv-02075-DGC-DKD Document 10 Filed 05/16/06 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 -

(9th Cir. 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). 

 “The defendants have the burden of raising and proving a prisoner’s failure to exhaust

under the PLRA.” Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 626 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 126 S. Ct.

647 (2005). “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.” Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). “A prisoner’s concession to

nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal so long as no exception to exhaustion applies.”

Id. at 1120. The proper remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies .

. . is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Id.; see also Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164,

1170 (9th Cir. 2005).

D. Analysis

An inmate should seek to resolve a conflict through the Maricopa County Jail

System’s Inmate Grievance Procedures. Specifically, an inmate who wishes to file a

grievance will be provides 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 (Dkt. # 6, Exh. 1, attachment 1).

Griffin averred that (1) the grievance policy does not limit issues an inmate may grieve,

(2) detention officers pass out grievances as part of their daily shift duties, (3) grievances are

not ignored, and (4) Plaintiff has not filed any grievances (Dkt. #6, Exh. 1). 

Defendant has demonstrated that there exists a grievance system which was made

available to Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff, failing to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, has

presented no evidence to support a conclusion that he availed himself of that system, merely

stating in his Complaint that the “guards will not let this be grieved.” Accordingly, based on

the evidence before this Court, Plaintiff failed to exhausted his administrative remedies, and

Case 2:05-cv-02075-DGC-DKD Document 10 Filed 05/16/06 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 -

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted. Notably, Defendant requested oral

argument. However, because the Motion to Dismiss will be granted, oral argument is

unnecessary.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #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 15th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02075-DGC-DKD Document 10 Filed 05/16/06 Page 4 of 4