Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02395/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02395-1/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

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bobby Joe Flemons, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2395-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendant moved to dismiss

(Doc. #8) 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. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendant Joseph Arpaio, alleging

that his constitutional rights were violated by (1) overcrowding, (2) unsanitary conditions,

and (3) an inadequate and tainted diet (Docs. #6). This Court ordered Defendant to answer

the Complaint, and he subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies because Plaintiff did not file any inmate grievances

(Docs. ##4, 8). Attached to the motion were (1) an affidavit of Sergeant Zelean Tademy, a

Hearing Officer for inmate discipline and grievances, and (2) the Maricopa County Sheriff’s

Office Inmate Grievance Procedure (Doc. #8).

Case 2:05-cv-02395-MHM-MEA Document 11 Filed 10/05/06 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 -

II. 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.” 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, advised of his obligation to respond to the motion, and informed that the failure to

respond may “be deemed a consent to the granting of that Motion” (Doc. #9) 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 may 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.

III. Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss

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

(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). To be

“properly exhausted,” the prisoner “must complete the administrative review process in

accordance with the applicable rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit

in federal court.” Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 

Case 2:05-cv-02395-MHM-MEA Document 11 Filed 10/05/06 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 -

 Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court considers exhaustion as a matter

of abatement in an unenumerated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) motion and “may

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. The 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). The proper

remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

IV. Analysis

According to the documents attached to the Motion to Dismiss, 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 provided 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. Tademy attested that Plaintiff did not file any grievances or

grievance appeals (Doc. #8, ex. 1).

Defendant has demonstrated that there exists a grievance system, to which Plaintiff

failed to avail himself. Plaintiff stated in his Complaint that the issues were not grievable,

grievances submitted to detention officers were not always taken seriously or sincerely

(Docs. ##1, 6). First, Plaintiff must exhaust regardless of the remedies available or the

sincerity of the detention officers. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Second,

Plaintiff’s mere statement regarding whether his complaints were grievable is insufficient to

support an allegation that Plaintiff was “reliably informed” that there were no available

remedies. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, based on

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

Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be granted.

Case 2:05-cv-02395-MHM-MEA Document 11 Filed 10/05/06 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 3rd day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02395-MHM-MEA Document 11 Filed 10/05/06 Page 4 of 4