Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03978/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03978-1/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

1

Upon screening, the Court dismissed ten other counts for failure to state a claim

(Doc. #4).

JDN

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Albert David Serpa, Sr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3978-PHX-DGC (JCG) 

ORDER

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

to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #7). Plaintiff failed to respond. The Court will grant

Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff sued Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and alleged that his constitutional rights were

violated by intolerable noise levels, unsanitary conditions, and inadequate recreational

opportunities at the jail1

 (Doc. #1). The Court ordered an answer, and Defendant filed a

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. ##4, 7). The Court issued an order informing Plaintiff of his

obligation to respond and the evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s

contentions (Doc. #8). During the course of this litigation, Plaintiff submitted a Notice of

Change of Address upon his transfer from the county jail to the state prison (Doc. #6). But

Case 2:05-cv-03978-DGC-JCG Document 13 Filed 11/14/06 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 -

because his notice did not identify which unit he was going to be placed in, the Court did not

change his address and a copy of the order informing Plaintiff of Defendant’s motion was

returned in the mail (Doc. #9). The Court therefore issued another order and provided

Plaintiff additional time to respond to the motion (Doc. #12). Plaintiff has not filed a

response. The time for responding has expired and the motion is ready for ruling. 

In support of the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant submitted the affidavit of Zelean

Tademy, a Sergeant assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit (Ex. A, Doc. #7). Tademy attested

that inmates are provided with a copy of the “Rules and Regulations for Inmates,” which

outlines the jail’s grievance procedures (Tademy Aff. ¶ 4). Tademy further attested that,

according to the sheriff’s office records, Plaintiff did not file any grievances during his

confinement at the jail (Id. ¶ 7). In addition to the affidavit, Defendant submitted a copy of

the Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy DJ-3, and two pages from the “Rules and

Regulations for Inmates” (Exs. A-B to Tademy Affidavit, Doc. #7). 

II. Exhaustion

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

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). 

Defendant bears 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). 

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-03978-DGC-JCG Document 13 Filed 11/14/06 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 -

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

Plaintiff’s claims (Tademy Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. A, Doc. #7). Plaintiff conceded in his Complaint

that he did not file grievances for any of his claims (Doc. #1 at 5A, 5C, and 5G). For each

count, Plaintiff explained that he did not submit grievances because the jail’s grievance

process was “non-responsive to listed count and results only in further delays in adjudication

and relief for detained prisoners” (Id.). But Plaintiff does not explain why he believes the

grievance process is non-responsive, nor does he describe whether he made any attempt to

grieve his claims within the jail before filing this action (Id.). Without more specific

allegations, Plaintiff cannot overcome Defendant’s evidence showing that a grievance system

was available at the jail for Plaintiff’s claims. In failing to respond to Defendant’s motion,

Plaintiff has presented nothing to demonstrate that he availed himself of that system. On this

record, Defendant has met his burden of demonstrating the absence of exhaustion, and the

Court will grant his motion to dismiss.

III. Failure to Respond

Alternatively, the Court has the discretion under Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of

Civil Procedure to deem Plaintiff’s lack of response as consent to Defendant’s motion to

dismiss. Plaintiff was warned of this possibility (Doc. ##8, 12). The Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals has upheld a dismissal based on a failure to comply with a similar local rule in the

District of Nevada. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). Before

dismissal on this basis, the court must weigh (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution

of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the

defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the

availability of less drastic sanctions. Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). If the court does not consider these factors, the record may be

reviewed independently on appeal for abuse of discretion. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

These factors do not favor Plaintiff. The interests in judicial economy reflected in the

first two factors favor dismissal of the action. On the third factor, there is no risk of

prejudice to Defendant by dismissal, which he already sought by motion. The fourth factor

Case 2:05-cv-03978-DGC-JCG Document 13 Filed 11/14/06 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 -

of favoring disposition of cases on their merits weighs in favor of Plaintiff, and for the fifth

factor, dismissal without prejudice is the least drastic sanction. In light of the overall fivefactor analysis weighing in Defendant’s favor, the Court will deem Plaintiff’s lack of a

response as a consent and dismiss the action without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #7) 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 14th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03978-DGC-JCG Document 13 Filed 11/14/06 Page 4 of 4