Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03335/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03335-0/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Luis Meneses, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3335-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se, Defendant has moved to dismiss (Doc.

#9) 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 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that

Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio violated his constitutional rights due to (1) an inadequate and

tainted diet, (2) overcrowding, and (3) unsanitary conditions (Doc. #1). Defendant Arpaio

was ordered to answer the Complaint, and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (Docs.

##5, 9). In his Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies because he did not file any inmate grievances (Doc. #9). Attached

to the motion were (1) an affidavit of Zelean Tademy, a Sergeant assigned to the Inmate

Hearing Unit, (2) the Maricopa County Grievance Procedures, (3) the Maricopa County

Rules and Regulations for Inmates, and (4) a blank inmate grievance form (Id.).

Case 2:05-cv-03335-SMM-JRI Document 12 Filed 09/29/06 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). 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. #10).

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). 

 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

Case 2:05-cv-03335-SMM-JRI Document 12 Filed 09/29/06 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 -

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 (1) the Maricopa County Grievance Policies do not limit the

issues an inmate may grieve, (2) the detention officers pass out grievances as part of their

duties, and (3) it is against policy for a detention officer to not accept an inmate grievance

(Doc. #7, ex. 1). Tademy further attested that Plaintiff failed to file any inmate grievances

(Id.).

Defendant has demonstrated that there exists a grievance system which was made

available to the Plaintiff, to which Plaintiff failed to avail himself. Plaintiff stated in his

Complaint that he was told by detention officers and employees of Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office that his claims were non-grievable (Doc. #1). However, Plaintiff’s mere

allegation in his Complaint that he was told by an unnamed detention officer that his claims

were non-grievable is insufficient to support an allegation that Plaintiff was “reliably

informed” that there were no available remedies. See 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-03335-SMM-JRI Document 12 Filed 09/29/06 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. #9) 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 29th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03335-SMM-JRI Document 12 Filed 09/29/06 Page 4 of 4