Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00416/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00416-0/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

Paul Joseph Litchfield, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0416-PHX-JAT (MEA)

ORDER

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

(Doc. #12) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff failed to respond. The Court will grant

Defendants’ motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Defendants Joseph Arpaio,

Capt. Peterson, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and Maricopa County violated his

constitutional rights due to (1) overcrowding; (2) an inadequate and tainted diet; (3) denial

of outside recreational opportunities; and (4) the failure to allow inmates access to the

grievance system (Doc. #1). The Court dismissed Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

and Maricopa County, and ordered Defendants Arpiao and Peterson to answer the Amended

Complaint (Doc. #7). Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (Doc. #12). Attached to the motion

were (1) an affidavit of Sergeant Susan Fisher, a Hearing Officer with Inmate discipline and

Case 2:06-cv-00416-JAT-MEA Document 15 Filed 02/13/07 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 -

grievances; (2) the Maricopa County Inmate Grievance Procedures; and (3) the Maricopa

County Rules and Regulations for Inmates (Id.).

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 Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff was provided notice of that

motion, advised of his obligation to respond, and informed that the failure to respond may

“be deemed a consent to the granting of that Motion” (Doc. #13). Despite these warnings,

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. Plaintiff’s failure to respond may be construed

as a consent to the granting of the motion. However, out of an abundance of caution, the

merits of Defendants’ motion 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.), cert denied 127 S.Ct. 232 (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.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 

Case 2:06-cv-00416-JAT-MEA Document 15 Filed 02/13/07 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

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

System’s Inmate Grievance Procedures. 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 (Doc. #12, exs. A, B). 

Fisher attested that detention officers pass out grievances as part of their daily shift

duties, and inmates receive a grievance form upon request (Id. ex. 1). Fisher further attested

that Plaintiff failed to file any grievance appeals (Id.).

Defendants established the existence of a grievance system to which Plaintiff failed

to fully avail himself. In his Complaint, Plaintiff conceded the existence of a grievance

system, but alleged that inmates who wish to file a grievance were denied due process (Doc.

#1). However, that bare statement is insufficient to demonstrate that there were no available

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

Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

Case 2:06-cv-00416-JAT-MEA Document 15 Filed 02/13/07 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 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #12) 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 12th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00416-JAT-MEA Document 15 Filed 02/13/07 Page 4 of 4