Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01364/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01364-0/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

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ted Allen Ballard,

Plaintiff

-vsJoseph Arpaio, et al.,

Defendant(s)

CV-05-1364-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Under consideration is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed October 11, 2005 (#6).

Background - Plaintiff, an inmate in the Maricopa County Jail, instituted this action

on May 6, 2005, by filing his Complaint (#1). His Complaint asserts three claims or cruel

and unusual punishment based upon: (1) inadequate diet; (2) overcrowding; and (3)

unsanitary conditions. The Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),

and an answer was ordered from Defendant Arpaio. The remaining Defendants were

dismissed. (Order 7/05/05, #4.)

Defendant Arpaio filed this Motion to Dismiss on October 11, 2005 (#6), arguing that

Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, and therefore the

Complaint was subject to dismissal. On November 1, 2005, Magistrate Judge Anderson set

a briefing schedule requiring Plaintiff to respond to the motion by November 29, 2005 (#7).

Plaintiff did not and has not responded.

Motion to Dismiss - In his Motion (#6), Defendant argues that Plaintiff had available

to him administrative remedies under Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy DJ-3 to

Case 2:05-cv-01364-MHM-LOA Document 12 Filed 05/22/06 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

grieve his claim, but that he failed to do so, and therefore dismissal is required under 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In support of these claims, Defendant submits the Affidavit of Sergeant

Corina Griffin, a hearing officer for inmate grievances, introducing Policy DJ-3 and avowing

that although Plaintiff filed a grievance on a request for medical treatment and three

grievances on his “canteen” requests, he did not file greivances on the issues in his

Complaint. (Exhibit 1 at ¶ 5-6.)

Failure to Respond - Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. The Court’s order

(#7) setting the briefing schedule warned Plaintiff of the provisions of Local Rule of Civil

Procedure 7.2(i), which provides that a failure to respond to a motion can be deemed by the

Court to be a consent to the granting of the motion. See 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). 

In the interim, Defendants have filed their Motion for Summary Disposition, asking

that the Plaintiff’s failure to respond be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (#9.)

Plaintiff has not responded to that motion.

Despite being warned of the effect of non-response, Plaintiff has not responded to the

motion to dismiss. Further, Plaintiff has not undertaken any visible action in this proceeding

following service of the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion to

deem Plaintiff's silence to be a consent to the granting of the motion.

Moreover, the Court finds that the motion should be granted on its merits.

Exhaustion Requirement - Exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This statute provides

Case 2:05-cv-01364-MHM-LOA Document 12 Filed 05/22/06 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

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). 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). A plaintiff must

fully exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a complaint. McKinney v. Carey, 311

F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002). "If the district court concludes that the prisoner has

not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without

prejudice." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 50

(2003). 

Standard for Granting Unenumerated Rule 12(b) Motion - The failure to exhaust

administrative remedies under the PLRA is treated as a matter in abatement and is properly

raised in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 50 (2003). Exhaustion is an affirmative defense;

establishing exhaustion of administrative remedies under the PLRA is not a pleading

requirement or a jurisdictional prerequisite. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. Therefore, the

defendant bears the burden of proving that plaintiff had available administrative remedies

that he did not utilize. Id.; Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2004).

 "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." Wyatt, 315 F.3d

at 1119-20. “A prisoner's concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal, so

long as no exception to exhaustion applies.” Id. at 1120. 

Case 2:05-cv-01364-MHM-LOA Document 12 Filed 05/22/06 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

Failure to Exhaust Available Administrative Remedies - Defendant has shown that

Plaintiff had available to him the standard inmate grievance procedures under Policy DJ-3

to grieve his claims. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s complaint asserts that despite

the availability of administrative remedies, that he failed to exhaust them. 

While Plaintiff’s Complaint does admit a failure to exhaust remedies, it also alleges

that grievances are ignored, result in retaliation, and that Counts II and III are not greivable

matters. (#1 at 4, 5, 6.) The PLRA only requires that administrative remedies which are

"available" to the plaintiff be exhausted prior to bringing suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Because the statute requires the remedy to be "available" to the prisoner, it is possible for a

prisoner to exhaust his administrative remedies without his claims being denied at the highest

level of administrative review specified by the relevant prison policies. For example, the

federal courts have held that refusing an inmate grievance forms could raise an inference that

the prisoner has exhausted his "available" administrative remedies. See Mitchell v. Horn, 318

F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that the district court erred by dismissing an inmate's

section 1983 claim based on his failure to exhaust because the district court did not consider

the inmate's allegation that prison officials refused to provide him with grievance forms);

Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (concluding that any remedy that prison

officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not a remedy which is available as that term is

defined in section 1997e(a)). 

Defendant has shown that, despite Plaintiff’s protests of unavailability, Plaintiff was

able to file four separate informal grievances. Moreover, Plaintiff provides no detail in his

Complaint to lend credibility to his allegations that his issues were not grieveable. He does

not identify the source or nature of the retaliation other than to allege “additional

Case 2:05-cv-01364-MHM-LOA Document 12 Filed 05/22/06 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

restrictions.” He does not identify who in particular told him his issues were not grieveable,

or whether the advice was that it was not grieveable or that the grievance would simply not

be successful. See Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (concluding that

section 1997e(a) does not permit the court to consider an inmate's subjective beliefs in

determining whether administrative procedures are "available”). Moreover, Plaintiff offers

no evidence that he actually attempted to have his grievances heard. See Jones v. Smith, 266

F.3d 399, 399 (6th Cir. 2001) (concluding that dismissal for failure to exhaust was proper

because the plaintiff failed to allege that the prison official who refused to provide a

grievance form was the only source of those forms or that plaintiff made other attempts to

obtain a form or file a grievance without a form). Plaintiff’s bare allegations are insufficient

to establish that the jail’s grievance procedures were unavailable.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint and this action must be dismissed in their entirety

without prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Disposition, filed February 16, 2006 (#9) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed October 11,

2005 (#6) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (#1) and this action are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 18th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01364-MHM-LOA Document 12 Filed 05/22/06 Page 5 of 5