Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03884/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03884-2/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

BL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kython K. Shaw, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3884-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a pro se inmate, Defendant moved to dismiss

(Doc. #7) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff has failed to respond. After careful review of the

pleadings and the record, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his constitutional

rights were violated by (1) an inadequate diet, (2) overcrowding, and (3) him being housed

in a condemned, unsanitary building (Doc. #1). Plaintiff asserted that he was informed by

unnamed detention officers that his claims were not grieavable (Id.). Defendant Arpaio was

ordered to answer, and he subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (Docs. ##4, 7). In his

Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies as he did not pursue any External Grievance Appeals (Doc. #7 at 5). Attached to

the motion were (1) an affidavit by Sergeant Zelean Tademy, assigned to the Inmate Hearing

Unit, and (2) Maricopa County Inmate Grievance Procedures (Id.; Doc. #8).

Case 2:05-cv-03884-DGC-LOA Document 12 Filed 07/26/06 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 -

II. Failure to Respond

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d) provides that a Plaintiff must file and serve a

notice of change of address 10 days before his move is effective. Additionally, “[p]ursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), [this Court] may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the [C]ourt.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

1992). Plaintiff, in the instructions for a prisoner filing a civil rights complaint, the notice

of assignment, and the service order, repeatedly was notified that he must inform this Court

of any change of address (Docs. ## 2, 5). 

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

and this Court orders a response, 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.” 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 Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff was provided notice of that

motion, advised of his obligation to respond to the motion, and informed that the failure to

respond may “be deemed a consent to the granting of that Motion” (Doc. #9). Despite these

warnings, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Moreover,

mail sent to Plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable (Doc. #11). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss may be construed as a consent to the granting of

it. Alternatively, because Plaintiff has failed to notify this Court of his change of address,

his action may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b). However, out of an abundance of

caution, the merits of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be addressed.

III. Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner may

not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless all

available administrative remedies are exhausted. See Roles v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016, 1017

Case 2:05-cv-03884-DGC-LOA Document 12 Filed 07/26/06 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 -

(9th Cir. 2006). Exhaustion is mandated “regardless of the relief offered through

administrative procedures.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). It is required in

all inmate suits regarding prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002). 

 Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court considers exhaustion as a matter

of abatement in an unenumerated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) motion and “may

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. The 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). The proper

remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

IV. Analysis

According to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss, an inmate should seek

to resolve a conflict through the Maricopa County Jail System’s Inmate Grievance

Procedures. Specifically, an inmate who wishes to file a grievance will be provided a

Grievance Form upon request, and must submit the form to a detention officer. The

unresolved grievance is forwarded to the shift Supervisor, and then to the Hearing Officer.

If the Hearing Officer is unable to resolve the grievance, the inmate may appeal his decision

to the jail commander, whose decision may be appealed to an External Referee. The External

Referee’s decision is final. Tademy attested that Plaintiff did not file any grievances (Doc.

#7, ex. 1; Doc. #8).

Defendant has demonstrated that there exists a grievance system which was made

available to the Plaintiff, and of which he did not avail himself. Further, Plaintiff’s mere

allegation in his Complaint that he was told by an unnamed detention officer that his claims

were non-grievable is insufficient to support an allegation that Plaintiff was “reliably

informed” that there were no available remedies. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35

(9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, based on the evidence before this Court, Plaintiff failed to

exhausted his administrative remedies. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

Case 2:05-cv-03884-DGC-LOA Document 12 Filed 07/26/06 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 -

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 25th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03884-DGC-LOA Document 12 Filed 07/26/06 Page 4 of 4