Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01242/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01242-1/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

Robert Heins, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1242-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 6). The Court

now rules on the motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff, Robert Heins, files this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that he was subjected to overcrowding, contagious diseases,

contaminated food, and unsanitary living conditions when he was detained at Estrella jail in

Phoenix, Arizona. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint on the basis

that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action.

In support of its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant has provided the Court with: (1)

copies of the inmate grievance procedures that were provided to the Plaintiff; (2) copies of

the rules and regulations for inmates that were provided to the Plaintiff; (3) copies of all

grievance forms submitted to the Defendant by the Plaintiff; (4) affidavit from a relevant

Case 2:05-cv-01242-JAT Document 12 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 3
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 -

employee avowing that the Plaintiff's grievances were each individually resolved and that the

Plaintiff did not further appeal his grievances at the internal or external levels. 

The Plaintiff failed to respond to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline J. Marshall filed her Report and Recommendation on

November 22, 2005, recommending that the Defendant's Motion to dismiss be granted on the

ground that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Report and

Recommendation was mailed to the Plaintiff on November 23, 2005. On December 13,

2005, after the time for filing objections had passed, the Plaintiff filed a one page letter

objecting to the dismissal of his case, but failing to address the substantive issues raised in

the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

II. Discussion

A motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies is a

“non-enumerated” Rule 12(b) motion. Ritza v. Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's

Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). In deciding a motion to dismiss for

a failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and

decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003).

If the court concludes that a prisoner failed to fully exhaust the non-judicial remedies, the

proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id. at 1120. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) states 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 available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). The exhaustion requirement

creates an affirmative defense, meaning the defendants have the burden of raising and

proving non-exhaustion of the claims. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1113. The exhaustion requirement

applies to all inmate suits concerning prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 122

S.Ct. 983, 992 (2002). The inmate must complete the administrative procedure, regardless

of the relief available. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001). 

Case 2:05-cv-01242-JAT Document 12 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 3
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 -

The Report and Recommendation points out that this Court's May 02, 2004, Order

admonished the Plaintiff that failure to respond "may result in the dismissal of the action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The

Magistrate Judge further warned the Plaintiff that Local rule 7.2(i) provides that a plaintiff's

failure to timely respond to a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion

and the court may dispose of the motion summarily. Additionally, in her Report and

Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge advised the Plaintiff that he had 10 days from the

date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within which to file specific

written objections with the Court. The plaintiff filed a one page letter generally objecting to

the dismissal of his case, but failing to address any of the substantive issues raised by the

Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation, or in the original Motion to Dismiss

filed by the Defendant. 

The Plaintiff, by his complete failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, fails to

provide any evidence that he exhausted the administrative remedies provided to him.

Although it appears that the Plaintiff did file grievances, they were never pursued to the

internal or external review levels. Therefore, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 

III. CONCLUSION

Having independently reviewed the record, the Court finds itself in agreement with

the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED ADOPTING the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (doc. # 9) as the Order of this Court. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 6) and

dismissing this action without prejudice.

DATED this 19th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01242-JAT Document 12 Filed 12/19/05 Page 3 of 3