Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03592/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03592-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

LMH

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roy Garza, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3592-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

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

has moved to dismiss (dkt. #9) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff failed to respond, and

Defendant moved (dkt. #15) to summarily grant the motion to dismiss. The Court will grant

Defendant’s motions. 

A. Exhaustion

Plaintiff must first exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing this

action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Vaden v. Summerhill, No. 05-15650, ___ F.3d ___, 2006

WL 1529029, at *2 (9th Cir. June 6, 2006); Roles v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016, 1017 (9th Cir.

2006). Exhaustion is required regarding 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). Defendants bear the burden of raising and

proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003);

see also Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 626 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 647 (2005).

The court considers exhaustion as a matter of abatement in an unenumerated Rule 12(b)

Case 2:05-cv-03592-DGC-ECV Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 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 -

motion and may look beyond the pleadings to decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315 F.3d

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) (quotation omitted). 

 In this case, there are no disputed fact issues. Plaintiff brought a verified Complaint,

admitting that Count I (lack of privacy) and Count II (unsanitary conditions) were not

appealed to the highest level because “they know already.” (Compl. at 4, ¶ 5; at 5, ¶ 5.)

Defendant moved to dismiss, relying upon this admission and the affidavit of Zelean

Tademy, a Hearing Officer for inmate discipline and grievances. Tademy asserts that

Plaintiff filed a grievance on these claims but did not appeal them through all the available

levels of review. (Tademy Aff., ¶ 11, Ex. 1, dkt. #10). 

Plaintiff was issued an order (dkt. #12) containing the customary warnings regarding

his obligation to respond and the potential consequences for failing to do so. Yet, he failed

to respond. On this record, Defendant has met his burden of demonstrating the absence of

exhaustion. The Court will therefore grant their motion to dismiss.

B. Lack of Response

Defendant has also moved for the Court to summarily grant the motion to dismiss

because Plaintiff’s lack of response could be deemed as consent to the motion under Rule

7.2(i) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld

a dismissal based on a failure to follow 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. 

Case 2:05-cv-03592-DGC-ECV Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 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 factors do not favor Plaintiff. The interests in judicial economy reflected in the

first two factors have significant weight in the action, particularly in light of the huge number

of filings similar to Plaintiff’s as was noted in the Court’s earlier screening Order (dkt. #4

at 1 n.1). On the third factor, there is no risk of prejudice to Defendant to resolve the motion

in his favor. The fourth factor of favoring disposition of cases on their merits weighs in favor

of Plaintiff but only slightly so because Plaintiff has failed to rebut Defendant’s showing of

the absence of exhaustion. For the fifth factor, there no less drastic sanction in light of the

absence of exhaustion. Thus, the five-factor analysis weighs in Defendant’s favor, and the

Court will deem Plaintiff’s lack of a response as a consent and dismiss the action against

Defendant. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (dkt. #9) and motion to

summarily grant the motion to dismiss (dkt. #15) are granted. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed

for lack of exhaustion or, alternately, for failure to respond. The Clerk of Court shall enter

a judgment of dismissal accordingly.

DATED this 12th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03592-DGC-ECV Document 16 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 3