Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01339/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01339-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathan Allen Gaub, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1339-PHX-PGR (ECV)

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed August

30, 2007, wherein the defendants seek the dismissal of the entirety of this action

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 13, 2007, Magistrate

Judge Voss entered an order (doc. #12) that (1) advised the plaintiff of the filing

of the motion to dismiss, (2) advised him of the procedural requirements of LRCiv

7.2(e) for responding to a motion to dismiss, (3) warned him that his failure to file

a timely response could lead to the dismissal of this action pursuant to LRCiv

7.2(i), and (4) ordered him to file a response to the motion to dismiss no later than

October 12, 2007. A review of the record establishes that the plaintiff has not

made any effort to date to respond to the motion to dismiss or to seek any

extension of time for doing so.

The Court finds that the motion to dismiss should be granted in its entirety

Case 2:06-cv-01339-PGR-ECV Document 14 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i) because the plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion is

deemed to be his consent to the granting of it. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d

651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994).

The Court further finds that the motion to dismiss should be granted on its

merits because the record establishes that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies as to any of the three claims raised in his First Amended

Complaint. Although this action was commenced subsequent to the plaintiff’s

release from the Maricopa County jail, the plaintiff’s claims all arise out of events

that occurred during his incarceration. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), no

action by a prisoner related to prison conditions may be brought until all available

administrative remedies are exhausted. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199

(9th Cir. 2002). The plaintiff admitted in his First Amended Complaint (doc. #7)

that he had not attempted to exhaust administrative remedies as to any claim and

the evidence submitted by the defendants establishes that a grievance procedure

was available to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff did not file any grievances while

incarcerated. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. #11) is granted

and that this action is dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 16th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01339-PGR-ECV Document 14 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2