Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02131/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02131-0/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

JWB

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathan Ian Burns, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2131-PHX-DGC (MHB)

ORDER

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

for lack of exhaustion (Doc. # 6). Plaintiff failed to respond, although he was informed of

his rights and obligations to do so (Doc. # 7). The Court will grant the motion to dismiss.

I. Exhaustion

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). 

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

Case 2:07-cv-02131-DGC-MHB Document 9 Filed 05/05/08 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

1 Defendant also argued that Plaintiff’s failure to allege a physical injury requires

dismissal of his claim (Doc. # 6 at 6). Defendant correctly notes that Plaintiff may not

recover damages for emotional injury in the absence of any physical injury. But this does

not bar Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages based on alleged

violations of his constitutional rights. Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 629-30 (9th Cir. 2002).

- 2 -

decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. 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. Analysis

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Arpaio instituted a policy that

restricts all mail to metered postcards (Doc. # 1 at 3). Plaintiff claimed that this policy

contravenes his First Amendment rights (id.). Plaintiff further alleged that this issue has been

grieved by numerous inmates without success by other inmates. As a result, Plaintiff

acknowledged that he did not grieve this claim personally (id.). The Court required

Defendant Arpaio to answer (Doc. # 3).

 Defendant Arpaio moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion,1

 arguing that Plaintiff’s

failed to file a single grievance as to his claim that his First Amendment rights were violated

by Defendant’s mail policy (Doc. # 6 at 5). Plaintiff was issued an order containing the

customary warnings regarding his obligation to respond and the potential consequences for

failing to do so (Doc. # 7). He was specifically informed that if Defendant showed that he

failed to exhaust, his action would be dismissed unless he produced controverting evidence

(id. at 2). 

Plaintiff failed to respond. Thus, Plaintiff has not rebutted Defendant’s evidence that

Plaintiff did not file any grievances while in Maricopa County custody. Plaintiff’s

allegations in his Complaint do not alter this determination or suggest that administrative

remedies were not available to Plaintiff. On this record, Defendant has met his burden of

demonstrating the absence of exhaustion, and the Court will grant his motion to dismiss.

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-02131-DGC-MHB Document 9 Filed 05/05/08 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 -

III. Lack of a Response

Alternately, the Court has the discretion under Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure to deem Plaintiff’s lack of response as consent to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff was warned of this possibility (Doc. # 7). 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 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 has apparently lost interest in prosecuting his action. There is no risk of prejudice

to Defendant to resolve the motion in his 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, dismissal without prejudice is the least drastic

sanction. In light of the overall five-factor analysis weighing in Defendant’s favor, the Court

will dismiss the action without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Arpaio’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 6) is 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 5th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02131-DGC-MHB Document 9 Filed 05/05/08 Page 3 of 3