Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00038/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00038-2/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

Pablo Perez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0038-PHX-SMM (ECV) 

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a former county jail inmate, Defendants moved

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #8). Plaintiff failed to respond. The Court will grant

Defendants’ motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff sued Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Captain Peterson, and alleged that his

constitutional rights were violated by overcrowding, lead paint, and unsanitary conditions

at the jail (Doc. #1). The Court ordered an answer, and Defendants filed a Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. ##4, 8). The Court issued an Order informing Plaintiff of his obligation to

respond and the evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendants’ contentions (Doc. #9).

Plaintiff did not file a response. The time for responding has expired, and the motion is ready

for ruling.

Case 2:06-cv-00038-SMM-ECV Document 11 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

In their motion, Defendants contended that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative

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

(Doc. #8). In support, Defendants submitted the affidavit of Zelean Tademy, a Sergeant

assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit (Ex. 1, Doc. #8). Tademy attested that inmates are

provided a copy of the “Rules and Regulations for Inmates,” which describes the jail’s

grievance procedure (Tademy Aff. ¶ 7). Tademy further attested that the grievance policy

does not restrict the type of grievances that an inmate may submit (Id. ¶ 9). According to the

sheriff’s office records, Plaintiff filed one grievance during his confinement at the jail, but

that grievance was unrelated to the claims in this action (Id. ¶ 11). In addition to the

affidavit, Defendants submitted a copy of the Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy DJ-3, and

two pages from the “Rules and Regulations for Inmates” (Exs. 1A, 1C, Doc. #8). 

II. Failure to Respond

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that if a party files a motion to dismiss,

and “the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such

non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court

may dispose of the motion summarily.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th

Cir. 1995) (providing that the district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily granting

defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff had time to

respond to the motion but failed to do so). 

 After Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss, the Court informed Plaintiff of his

obligation to respond to the motion, and that the failure to respond may “be deemed a consent

to the granting of that Motion” (Doc. #9). Despite these warnings, Plaintiff failed to respond

to Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff’s failure to respond will be construed as a consent to the

granting of the motion. However, the merits of Defendants’ motion will be addressed.

III. Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss

A prisoner must first exhaust “available” administrative remedies before bringing an

action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.

2006); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). He must complete the

Case 2:06-cv-00038-SMM-ECV Document 11 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable rules. See Woodford v.

Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 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). 

Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, the administrative exhaustion requirement does not

require dismissal of the entire action when a prisoner brings a § 1983 action containing both

unexhausted and exhausted claims. The “total exhaustion” rule was rejected by the Ninth

Circuit in Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1173-75 (9th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed, 74

U.S.L.W. 3425 (2006). The validity of the “total exhaustion” rule is presently pending

before the Supreme Court in Williams v. Overton, 136 Fed. Appx. 859, 2005 WL 1513102

(6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished), cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 1463 (March 6, 2006). Until the

Supreme Court decides to the contrary, the binding precedent in this circuit is that only

unexhausted claims are dismissed, not the entire action. Lira, 427 F.3d at 1175-76. 

Defendants bear 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). 

IV. Analysis

Defendants submitted evidence that a grievance system was available at the jail for

Plaintiff’s claims (Tademy Aff. ¶¶ 5, 9; Ex. 1A, Doc. #8). Plaintiff conceded in his

Complaint that he failed to file the requisite grievances within the jail system (Doc. #1 at 4-

6). Plaintiff asserted for each of his three claims that he was told the issue was not grievable

(Id.). But he did not explain who told him that these issues were not grievable, or what

transpired for each claim. Without more, his allegation is insufficient to overcome

Defendants’ evidence that there existed a grievance system which was made available to

Plaintiff. In failing to respond to the motion, Plaintiff presented nothing to support a

Case 2:06-cv-00038-SMM-ECV Document 11 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 4
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 -

conclusion that he availed himself of that system. Based on the evidence before the Court,

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and Defendants’ motion will be

granted. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #8) is granted.

Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. The Clerk of Court

shall enter a judgment of dismissal accordingly.

DATED this 21st day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00038-SMM-ECV Document 11 Filed 11/28/06 Page 4 of 4