Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01052/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01052-0/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

William Giddings, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-CV-1052-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the conditions

of confinement at the Durango Jail violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Complaint at

4-6. The court has before it defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10). Plaintiff failed to

file a response.

Plaintiff is precluded from bringing this action unless administrative remedies are

exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to exhaust the

required administrative remedies. Motion to Dismiss at 3-4. It is undisputed that plaintiff

did not file a grievance as required by the Inmate Grievance Procedure. Complaint at 4-6;

Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit A.

Plaintiff states that he did not submit a request for administrative relief because

“[t]his is not a greivable matter.” Complaint at 5-6. There is however no restriction on

the type of grievance allowed pursuant to the Inmate Grievance Procedure. Motion to

Dismiss at 3; Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit A.

Case 2:05-cv-01052-FJM-LOA Document 11 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Plaintiff also states that he did not submit a request for administrative relief

because “[g]reivances are ignored and result in inmates being singled out for retaliation

and additional restrictions.” Complaint at 4. Without more, plaintiff's conclusory

allegations are insufficient to prove that the administrative remedies are unavailable.

Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Moreover, plaintiff's failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss serves as an

additional, independent reason to grant the motion. Failure to 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). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

(doc. 10).

DATED this 14th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01052-FJM-LOA Document 11 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2