Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00731/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00731-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MICHAEL SHAUN JACKSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

JOSEPH ARPAIO,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0731 PHX JWS (DKD)

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Arpaio’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. #8).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 7, 2005. On June 14, 2005, the

Court ordered Defendant to answer Plaintiff’s allegation that

Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights while

Plaintiff was detained in the Maricopa County Durango jail, by

failing to provide Plaintiff with an adequate diet and by

subjecting him to overcrowded and unsanitary living

conditions. (Doc. #5). 

Case 2:05-cv-00731-JWS-DKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 6
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 -

Defendant was served and, on September 26, 2005,

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1997e for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his

administrative remedies regarding the claims stated in the

complaint. (Doc. #8).

 In an order (Doc. #9) issued October 28, 2005,

Plaintiff was warned by the Court that his failure to respond

to the motion to dismiss within thirty days could be deemed

consent to the entry of judgment against Plaintiff, pursuant

to Rule 7.2, United States District Court for the District of

Arizona Local Rules of Civil Procedure. As of December 21,

2005, Plaintiff has not responded to or filed any pleading

otherwise opposing Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard for granting motion to dismiss

When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must take the

factual allegations of the complaint as true and construe them

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Galbraith

v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002);

Epstein v. Washington Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.

1996). Additionally, pro se complaints are held to a less

strict standard than those drafted by counsel. See Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976). It is

not appropriate to dismiss a pro se prisoner’s civil rights

action unless it is “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove

no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.” Id.

Case 2:05-cv-00731-JWS-DKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 6
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 -

B. Exhaustion

Exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) is governed by 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a). This statute provides that “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983

of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility

until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2003 & Supp. 2005). This

language has been interpreted to require “that an inmate must

exhaust [available remedies] irrespective of the forms of

relief sought and offered through administrative avenues.”

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, n.6 (2001). The

exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about

prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or

particular episodes.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532

(2002). 

A plaintiff must fully exhaust his administrative

remedies before filing a section 1983 complaint. McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion

is an affirmative defense; establishing exhaustion of

administrative remedies under the PLRA is not a pleading

requirement or a jurisdictional prerequisite. See Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S.

Ct. 50 (2003); Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 675 (2d Cir.

2004). Therefore, Defendant has “the burden of raising and

proving the absence of exhaustion.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119.

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA

Case 2:05-cv-00731-JWS-DKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 6
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 -

is treated as a matter in abatement and is properly raised in

an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Id. “In deciding a motion

to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the

court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues

of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. “If the district court concludes

that the prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the

proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.”

Id. at 1120.

Detainees complaining about the conditions encountered at

a Maricopa County jail facility may pursue an administrative

grievance in accordance with the three-step process outlined

in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedure

manual. Doc. #8, Exh. 1. The inmate first files a grievance

which is heard by a shift supervisor. The inmate may appeal

an adverse decision by the shift supervisor by filing an

Institutional Grievance Appeal, which is determined by a jail

commander. The third step in the process is to file an

External Grievance Appeal regarding any adverse decision by

the jail commander. Id., Exh. A.

The evidence presented by Defendant establishes that

administrative remedies were available to Plaintiff and that

Plaintiff failed to properly pursue his administrative

remedies with regard to the claims stated in his complaint,

i.e. his claims regarding unsanitary and overcrowded living

conditions and jail food, prior to filing his section 1983

complaint. 

Additionally, Rule 7.2, United States District Court for

the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil Procedure

Case 2:05-cv-00731-JWS-DKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/06 Page 4 of 6
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 -

provides that a party’s failure to respond to a motion may, in

the Court’s discretion, be deemed a consent to the Court’s

granting of judgment in favor of the movant. See Brydges v.

Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). When the Court

has warned the non-moving part that their failure to respond

“‘shall constitute a consent’” to the granting of the motion,

the Court may properly exercise its discretion to a motion

based on the non-moving party’s construed consent. Id. See

also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion

by summarily granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss

pursuant to a local rule where the pro se plaintiff had time

to respond to the motion but failed to do so). 

Defendant has asserted Plaintiff has not exhausted his

administrative remedies, a prerequisite to filing his suit.

Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s assertion that he has

failed to fulfill a prerequisite to filing his section 1983

complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts

which establish that he has stated a claim for relief.

Conclusion

Plaintiff has failed to allege or to show that he has

exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his claim

regarding jail overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions.

Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to object to Defendant’s

motion to dismiss although Plaintiff was warned that his

failure to do so would result in dismissal of his claims. 

Case 2:05-cv-00731-JWS-DKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/06 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. #8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby

dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

his administrative remedies with regard to the claim for

relief stated in his complaint.

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 27 day of December th

2005.

/s/

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00731-JWS-DKD Document 12 Filed 01/03/06 Page 6 of 6