Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08121/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08121-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Leon Bell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-8121-PCT-JAT (SPL)

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Bell filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office Sergeant Proffer and Officers Isaacs and Hawkins (Doc. 8).

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15). Plaintiff did not respond to

the motion.

The Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss and terminate this action.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claims stem from his confinement at the Yavapai County Jail (Doc. 8).

Plaintiff claimed that on January 12, 2012, Defendants failed to protect him from attacks

from other inmates (id. at 3). 

The Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations stated a claim and directed Defendants to

respond to the First Amended Complaint. 

II. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants move for dismissal on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies as required under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42

Case 3:12-cv-08121-JAT Document 17 Filed 05/01/13 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 -

U.S.C. 1997e(a). In support of their motion, Defendants submit the Yavapai County Jail

Handbook; the affidavit of Lieutenant Jason Miner, a Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office

Grievance Hearing Officer; and two Inmate Handbook release forms reflecting Plaintiff’s

receipt of the handbook (Doc. 15, Exs. 1-3). 

Miner attests that the Yavapai County Jail provides a four-step process to grieve an

issue: (1) the inmate must first attempt to resolve an issue informally by completing an

Inmate Request Form; (2) if unsuccessful, the inmate may file a formal grievance; (3) if not

satisfied with the grievance response, the inmate may file a grievance appeal to the Grievance

Hearing Officer, at which time the inmate will receive a hearing; and (4) if unsatisfied with

the hearing results, the inmate may appeal to the Jail Commander (Doc. 15, Ex. 1, Handbook

¶ 18). Miner states that he reviewed the jail’s grievance files and logs but Plaintiff failed to

complete any of the steps of the grievance process regarding his failure-to-protect claim. 

Defendants submit that based on this evidence, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies and his claim should therefore be dismissed (Doc. 15 at 4). 

The Court issued an Order notifying Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to

Defendants’ motion (Doc. 16). This Order informed Plaintiff that if the motion is granted,

his case could be dismissed (id. at 1). The Order also cited Local Rule of Civil Procedure

7.2(i) in its entirety; this rule provides that a party’s failure to respond to a motion may be

deemed a consent to the granting of the motion (id. at 2). LRCiv 7.2(i). Plaintiff was given

until April 10, 2013 to respond to the Motion to Dismiss (id.).

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response, and the time for responding has expired.

III. Exhaustion

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

Case 3:12-cv-08121-JAT Document 17 Filed 05/01/13 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 -

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

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. Analysis

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff acknowledges that he did not file any

grievances for his claim but alleges that he was not aware of the grievance procedure at the

jail. It is true that if Plaintiff was unable to file grievance forms or if he was reliably

informed that administrative remedies were not available, exhaustion is not required.

Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2009); Brown, 422 F.3d at 935. But in

this case, Plaintiff has not shown that the jail’s grievance process was unavailable to him.

Indeed, in failing to respond to the motion, Plaintiff offers no evidence to dispute that he

twice received the jail’s handbook, which clearly outlined the grievance process (Doc. 15,

Ex. 3). Thus, this case does not present a scenario where Plaintiff could not have availed

himself of the grievance procedure. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90 (proper exhaustion

requires “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly”). On this record,

the Court finds that Defendants have met their burden to demonstrate nonexhaustion, and the

Motion to Dismiss will be granted. 

IV. Lack of a Response

Alternately, the Court has the discretion under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i)

to grant Defendants’ motion in light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond. As stated, Plaintiff was

specifically warned of this possibility in an Order from the Court (Doc. 16). Plaintiff was

also previously warned that failure to comply with any of the Court’s Orders could result in

Case 3:12-cv-08121-JAT Document 17 Filed 05/01/13 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 -

dismissal (Docs. 5, 7, 9). 

Failure to comply with a district court’s local rule is a proper ground for dismissal.

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). But before dismissal on this basis, the

Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

sanctions.” Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

If the court does not consider these factors, the record may be reviewed independently on

appeal for abuse of discretion. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

Here, the first two factors favor dismissal. “[T]he public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983,

990 (9th Cir. 1999), and the second factor favors dismissal in most cases. Wanderer v.

Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the Court finds that the

public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing

the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor also favors dismissal. There is no

risk of prejudice to Defendants to grant the motion. 

Public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, so the fourth factor weighs

against dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The final factor requires the Court to consider the availability of less drastic sanctions.

Plaintiff was given ample time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court explicitly

warned Plaintiff that failure to respond could result in the granting of the motion (Doc. 16).

Plaintiff nonetheless failed to respond or move for an extension. Thus, in weighing this last

factor, the Court finds that dismissal the First Amended Complaint without prejudice is an

available and less drastic sanction in this case.

In sum, the five-factor analysis supports dismissal of this case for failure to respond

to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court’s decision to grant the motion in these circumstances

is further supported by the fact that it is premised upon a local rule that expressly permits the

Court to summarily grant unopposed motions. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (“Only in rare cases

Case 3:12-cv-08121-JAT Document 17 Filed 05/01/13 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 -

will we question the exercise of discretion in connection with the application of local rules”),

quoting United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will therefore be granted based on Plaintiff’s failure

to respond. See LRCiv 7.2(i). 

IT IS ORDERED:

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

Dismiss (Doc. 15).

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted. This action is dismissed

without prejudice for failure to exhaust; in the alternative, it is dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i).

DATED this 30th day of April, 2013.

Case 3:12-cv-08121-JAT Document 17 Filed 05/01/13 Page 5 of 5