Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01242/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01242-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Heins, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Maricopa County, 

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1242 PHX JAT (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, this case was referred to the

Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. Pending

before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to Exhaust Administrative

Remedies [Docket No. 6] filed by Defendant Maricopa County. For the reasons explained

below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after independent review

of the record, grant the pending motion. 

A. Background

Plaintiff, who at the time of the events giving rise to his claims was jailed at the

Estrella Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed pro se the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 25, 2005, alleging that the jail is severely overcrowded, he is

exposed to contagious diseases, he receives contaminated food, and that the living conditions

are unsanitary. On August 1, 2005, Defendant Maricopa County has filed a motion to

dismiss the amended complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff has

Case 2:05-cv-01242-JAT Document 9 Filed 11/23/05 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

not responded and the docket reflects that mail from the Court has been returned as

undeliverable.

The administrative process that the Defendant contends has not been exhausted is the

Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy Number DJ-3, which is attached to the Defendant's

Motion as Exhibit 2A. The Grievance Procedure describes three levels of redress. First, the

inmate must submit a Grievance Form to a detention officer for resolution by the officer, shift

supervisor, or hearing officer. Second, if an inmate decides to appeal, he is provided an

Institutional Grievance Appeal Form which is submitted to the jail commander. Third, if the

inmate remains dissatisfied, he is informed of the right to pursue an External Grievance

Appeal to be decided by an external referee. Inmate Grievance Procedure, ¶¶ 1-7. Only

upon conclusion of this procedure is the inmate permitted to file a complaint in the Federal

District Court. Id., ¶ 8. 

In this case, Heins filed four separate grievances raising the issues about which he

complains. Each of these agreement are attached to Defendant's Motion as Exhibit 1. In

grievance number 2005-05492, dated April 17, 2005, Heins complained of overcrowding and

unsanitary conditions. This grievance was not appealed beyond the shift supervisor's action

and was signed-off by Heins as informally resolved. In grievance number 2005-05960, dated

April 17, 2005, Heins complained of unsanitary conditions in the shower and sink area. This

grievance was not appealed beyond the shift supervisor's action and appears to have been

resolved. In grievance number 2005-06753, dated May 12, 2005, Heins complained of

unsanitary conditions. This bureau hearing officer responded to this grievance and it was not

appealed beyond that level. Grievance number 2005-06754, in which Heins again

complained of overcrowding, was dismissed by the bureau hearing officer as repetitive to

2005-06753 and was not appealed beyond that level. 

Case 2:05-cv-01242-JAT Document 9 Filed 11/23/05 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

B. Discussion

1. Failure to Respond

The docket reflects that Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, that

mail from the Clerk has been returned as undeliverable due to his release, and that he has not

provided a change of address. In Judge Teilborg's order dated May 2, 2004, Plaintiff was

warned that the failure to file a Notice of Change of Address "may result in the dismissal of

the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure." Additionally, Local Rule Civil 7.2(i) provides that a plaintiff's failure to timely

respond to a motion "may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the

Court may dispose of the motion summarily." LRCiv. 7.2(i).

2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense as to which defendants have the burden of proof,

and is properly raised in an "unenumerated" Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss rather than in a

motion for summary judgment. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).

In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the Court may

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. See id. at 1119-20.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA") amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to

provide that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C.

§ 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other

correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." See

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This exhaustion requirement is mandatory and not merely directory.

See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted and

those remedies "need not meet federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and

effective.'" See id. Exhaustion is a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison

life, whether such actions involve general conditions or particular episodes, whether they

allege excessive force or some other wrong, and even if they seek relief not available in

Case 2:05-cv-01242-JAT Document 9 Filed 11/23/05 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

grievance proceedings, such as money damages. See id. at 988, 992; Booth v. Churner, 532

U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

Here, there is no indication that Heins exhausted all remedies available to him. His

appeals never reached the institutional or external review levels. As such, the Defendant has

satisfied its burden to establish that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

in relation to his claims. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). 

C. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District

Court, after its independent review, issue an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss [Docket

No. 6] filed by Defendant Maricopa County, and dismissing this matter without prejudice.

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 05-1242-PHXJAT. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01242-JAT Document 9 Filed 11/23/05 Page 4 of 4