Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00098/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00098-3/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

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Herlindo Fuentes-Ramos, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0098-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Herlindo Fuentes-Ramos brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (Doc. #1). Before the Court are

Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate and Dismiss (Doc. #8) and Plaintiff’s Motion to

Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice (Doc. #11). The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion

and deny Defendant’s motion as moot. 

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claim arose during his confinement in the Maricopa County jails (Doc. #1).

Plaintiff alleged that the conditions, including severe overcrowding (Count I), limited access

to the day room (Count II), and excessive noise (Count III), violated his Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights (id.). The Court ordered an answer, and Defendant filed a

Motion to Consolidate and Dismiss (Doc. ##4, 8).

In his motion, Defendant requested that the Court consolidate this case with CV 06-

2803-PHX-SMM (JRI) because the two cases allege similar violations (Doc. #8). Defendant

also moved to dismiss the action on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (id.

Case 2:07-cv-00098-SMM-JRI Document 14 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Notice required under Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2003).

- 2 -

at 4-5). In support, Defendant submitted the affidavit of Susan Fisher, a Sergeant with the

Inmate Hearing Unit, and excerpts of Policy DJ-3, the Inmate Grievance Procedure (id., Exs.

A-B). Fisher attested that during his incarceration in the county jail facilities, Plaintiff filed

just one grievance, which was resolved informally by the shift supervisor (id., Fisher Aff. ¶¶

8-9). Defendant raised two other grounds for dismissal: (1) Plaintiff did not show a physical

injury as required under the PLRA, and (2) Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages (id.

at 6).

The Court issued an Order informing Plaintiff of his obligation to respond and the

evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s contentions (Doc. #9).1

 In lieu of a

response, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice (Doc. #11).

He contended that his failure to exhaust administrative remedies stemmed from fear of

retaliation by officers at the jail (id. at 1). He requested a voluntary dismissal so that he may

comply with the PLRA exhaustion requirements and obtain the necessary documents to

demonstrate physical injury (id. at 2). Defendant did not oppose voluntary dismissal,

however, Defendant argued that dismissal should be with prejudice for the reasons set forth

in his motion for consolidation and dismissal (Doc. #12).

II. Motion to Consolidate

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides that when actions involving a common

question of law or fact are pending before the Court, they may be consolidated. The case

Defendant seeks to consolidate with this action, CV 06-2803-PHX-SMM (JRI), has been

terminated. As such, the request to consolidate the two actions will be denied as moot.

III. Voluntary Dismissal

Under Rule 41(a)(2), if the defendant has answered or filed a dispositive motion, the

plaintiff may not dismiss an action except by court order and under such terms and conditions

as the court deems proper. A Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal is without prejudice, unless the order

Case 2:07-cv-00098-SMM-JRI Document 14 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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 -

specifies otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Ninth Circuit law provides that “[a] district

court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant

can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263

F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

Defendant makes no showing that he will suffer legal prejudice from a voluntary

dismissal. Indeed, he does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion except to the extent that he contends

dismissal should be with prejudice on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust, did not

demonstrate physical injury, and is not entitled to punitive damages (Doc. #12, citing Doc.

#8). But when dismissal is based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the dismissal

should be without prejudice. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120. Assuming, arguendo, that the Court

were to grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the merits, the dismissal would be without

prejudice. Thus, there are no grounds presented that warrant dismissal with prejudice. The

Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this action. 

IV. Motion to Dismiss

In light of the Court’s decision to grant Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal,

Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied as moot.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate and Dismiss (Doc. #8) is DENIED.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice (Doc. #11) is

GRANTED.

(3) The Clerk of Court must dismiss this action without prejudice and enter judgment

accordingly. 

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00098-SMM-JRI Document 14 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 3