Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00754/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00754-3/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

1

 The Court provided Plaintiff a Notice as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 52.) 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bradley D. Proctor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Corrections Corporation of America, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0754-PHX-RCB (DKD)

O R D E R

Plaintiff Bradley D. Proctor was an Alaskan inmate who was, during the relevant time

period, in the custody of the Red Rock Correctional Center (RRCC) in Eloy, Arizona,

pursuant to a contract between the State of Alaska Department of Corrections and

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Plaintiff filed this civil rights Complaint,

alleging federal and state-law claims regarding medical care. (Doc. 33.) The remaining

Defendants—Cox, Crane, and Miracle—move to dismiss the federal claim on the ground that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (PLRA).1

 (Doc. 51.) They also seek to dismiss the state-law claims on the

ground that Plaintiff failed to disclose an expert witness and, therefore, will be unable to

comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-563, which requires proof of breach of the standard of care

and that such breach was the proximate cause of the injury. (Id.)

The Court will grant the motion as to the Eighth Amendment claim, decline

Case 2:11-cv-00754-RCB Document 65 Filed 01/31/13 Page 1 of 5
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 -

supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims, and terminate the action. 

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claims arise out of a fall from his upper bunk on December 4, 2008.

Plaintiff suffered injuries requiring reconstructive facial surgery and follow-up surgery.

(Doc. 33.) Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical

needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that they were negligent and committed

medical malpractice, in violation of state law. (Id.) The remaining claims and Defendants

were dismissed on screening. (Doc. 34.)

II. Plaintiff’s Response is Untimely

Plaintiff was granted two extensions of time to file his response. (Docs. 57, 61.) The

response was due December 17, 2012. (Doc. 61.) Plaintiff’s response is dated December

21, 2012; it is, therefore, untimely. (Doc. 63.) Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to

respond, the Court could treat the failure to respond as consent to granting Defendants’

motion. (Doc. 52.)

As discussed below, even if the Court considers the response, the Court will dismiss

the action.

III. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

A. Legal Standard

Under the PLRA, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before

bringing a federal action concerning prison conditions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Griffin

v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). 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). And a

prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable

rules. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212 (2007). Thus,

the 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

Case 2:11-cv-00754-RCB Document 65 Filed 01/31/13 Page 2 of 5
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 -

in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, a court may look beyond the pleadings to decide

disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. Further, 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).

B. Parties’ Contentions

 In support of their motion, Defendants submit the affidavit of Carl Richey, RRCC

Grievance Coordinator (Doc. 51, Ex. 1, Richey Aff. ¶ 1); State of Alaska Prisoner Grievance

Procedure 808.03 (id., Ex. A); Grievance Log (id., Ex. B); and Plaintiff’s Grievances (id.

Exs. C-E).

Defendants assert that at the time relevant to Plaintiff’s Complaint, RRCC had a

grievance procedure governed by Policy 808.03. (Id., Richey Aff. ¶ 4-6.) The procedure

consists of three steps: (1) an informal resolution, (2) a formal grievance, and (3) an appeal

and final determination. Defendants assert that according to Plaintiff’s grievance file,

Plaintiff did not file a grievance regarding the claims in his First Amended Complaint. (Id.

¶¶ 28, 34.)

Plaintiff responds that “every time he attempted to commence the grievance process,

that effort was thwarted by corrections officials.” (Doc. 63 at 3.) He also argues that under

Alaska law, he is not required to exhaust administrative remedies. (Id.) Defendants reply

that the case on which Plaintiff relies is inapplicable to Plaintiff’s federal claim and that

Plaintiff offers nothing but a bald allegation that he was thwarted in his effort to file a

grievance. (Doc. 64 at 2-3.)

C. Analysis

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies on the Eighth

Amendment claim. Defendants provide evidence of an available administrative remedy and

Plaintiff’s failure to properly exhaust under that process, and Plaintiff fails to provide a

legally sufficient excuse for his failure to exhaust. 

As noted, the PLRA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies for federal claims.

Plaintiff’s authority, Hymes v. DeRamus, 222 P.3d 874 (Alaska 2010), relates to a prisoner’s

Case 2:11-cv-00754-RCB Document 65 Filed 01/31/13 Page 3 of 5
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 -

state-law claim. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that he was thwarted in his efforts to file

a grievance is insufficient to excuse a failure to exhaust his deliberate indifference claim.

Plaintiff does not state when he attempted to file or who thwarted his efforts. 

The Court will dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim without prejudice.

IV. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims for Failure to Comply with

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-563

Because the Court has dismissed the federal claim, the Court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro.

Police Dept., 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court notes that in terms of

“substantial preparation” on the supplemental claims, little activity appears to have occurred

in this case. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3), see Commentary on 1988 Revision, Discretionary

Rejection of Supplemental Jurisdiction. Service of process on Defendants was not completed

until April 27, 2012, and no Scheduling Order was issued until May 22, 2012. (Docs. 40-42,

45.) The discovery deadline was August 20, 2012, and the present motion was filed October

12, 2012. (Docs. 45, 51.) 

The Court will not, however, remand this case because it was removed to the United

States District Court of Alaska after being initially brought in the Alaska Superior Court.

(Doc. 12 at 1-2.) As noted in the Transfer Order from the United States District Court of

Alaska, the action should have been brought in Arizona because all Defendants are residents

of Arizona and Plaintiff alleges that the action supporting the complaint occurred in Arizona.

(Id.) Therefore, the Court will dismiss the state law claims without prejudice to Plaintiff

refiling them in State Court in Arizona. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 51).

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 51) is granted as to the Eighth

Amendment claim, which is dismissed without prejudice; the remaining claims are also

dismissed without prejudice.

Case 2:11-cv-00754-RCB Document 65 Filed 01/31/13 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

(3) Pending motions are denied as moot.

(4) The action is terminated, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-00754-RCB Document 65 Filed 01/31/13 Page 5 of 5