Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02523/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02523-0/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

FORREST JAMES WOOD, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, JOSEPH M.

ARPAIO, individually and 

in his capacity as 

Sheriff of Maricopa County,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2523 PHX EHC (MEA)

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

[Dkt. #8].

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint [Dkt. #1]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 10, 2004. On May 2,

2005, the Court ordered Defendant to answer Plaintiff’s

allegation that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment rights, while Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee in

the Maricopa County Towers jail facility, by subjecting him to

overcrowded living conditions. [Dkt. #4]. Plaintiff’s

complaint seeks monetary damages.

Case 2:04-cv-02523-EHC-MEA Document 10 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 6
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 -

 Defendants waived service and filed a motion to dismiss

on August 1, 2005. Defendants assert that the complaint must

be dismissed, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, because Plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding the

claim stated in the complaint prior to filing his section 1983

suit. Although Plaintiff was warned by the Court that his

failure to respond to the motion to dismiss within thirty days

could be deemed consent to the entry of judgment against

Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 7.2, United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil Procedure, in

an order [Dkt. #9] issued August 2, 2005, as of September 20,

2005, Plaintiff has not responded to or filed any pleading

otherwise opposing Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard for granting motion to dismiss

When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must take the

factual allegations of the complaint as true and construe them

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Galbraith

v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002);

Epstein v. Washington Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.

1996). Additionally, pro se complaints are held to a less

strict standard than those drafted by counsel. See Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976). It is

not appropriate to dismiss a pro se prisoner’s civil rights

action unless it is “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove

no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.” Id.

Case 2:04-cv-02523-EHC-MEA Document 10 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 6
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 -

B. Exhaustion

Exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) is governed by 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a). This statute provides 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 are available are

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2003 & Supp. 2005). This

language has been interpreted to require “that an inmate must

exhaust [available remedies] irrespective of the forms of

relief sought and offered through administrative avenues.”

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, n.6 (2001). The

exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about

prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or

particular episodes.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532

(2002). 

A plaintiff must fully exhaust his administrative

remedies before filing a section 1983 complaint. McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002). To fully

exhaust a section 1983 claim, a prisoner must pursue his

grievance to the highest administrative level available to

him. See Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720, 726 (6th Cir. 2003);

Harper v. Jenkin, 179 F.3d 1311, 1312 (11th Cir. 1999); Morgan

v. Maricopa County, 259 F. Supp. 2d 985, 990-91 & n.13 (D.

Ariz. 2003). Exhaustion is an affirmative defense;

establishing exhaustion of administrative remedies under the

PLRA is not a pleading requirement or a jurisdictional

Case 2:04-cv-02523-EHC-MEA Document 10 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 6
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 -

prerequisite. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 50 (2003); Giano v. Goord, 380

F.3d 670, 675 (2d Cir. 2004). Therefore, Defendant has “the

burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.”

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. 

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the

PLRA is treated as a matter in abatement and is properly

raised in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Id. “In

deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust

nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings

and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. “If the

district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted

nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal of the

claim without prejudice.” Id. at 1120.

Detainees complaining about the conditions encountered at

a Maricopa County jail facility may pursue an administrative

grievance in accordance with the three-step process outlined

in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedure

manual. The inmate first files a grievance which is heard by

a shift supervisor. The inmate may appeal an adverse decision

by the shift supervisor by filing an Institutional Grievance

Appeal, which is determined by a jail commander. The third

step in the process is to file an External Grievance Appeal

regarding any adverse decision by the jail commander. [Dkt. 8,

Exh. 1]. 

Defendant avers that Plaintiff has not exhausted his

administrative remedies and that Plaintiff admits that he did

not exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 2.

Case 2:04-cv-02523-EHC-MEA Document 10 Filed 09/29/05 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

Rule 7.2, United States District Court for the District

of Arizona Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a

party’s failure to respond to a motion may, in the Court’s

discretion, be deemed a consent to the Court’s granting of

judgment in favor of the movant. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18

F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). When the Court has warned

the non-moving party that its failure to respond “shall

constitute a consent” to the granting of the motion, the Court

may properly exercise its discretion to a motion based on the

non-moving party’s construed consent. Id. See also Ghazali

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that the

district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily

granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to a local

rule where the pro se plaintiff had time to respond to the

motion but failed to do so). 

Defendants have asserted that Plaintiff has not exhausted

his administrative remedies, a prerequisite to filing his

suit. Plaintiff does not contest Defendants’ assertion that

he has failed to fulfill a prerequisite to filing his section

1983 complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to plead

facts which establish that he has stated a claim for relief.

Conclusion

Plaintiff has failed to allege or to show that he has

exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his claim

regarding jail overcrowding. 

Case 2:04-cv-02523-EHC-MEA Document 10 Filed 09/29/05 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt.

#8] is GRANTED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to the claim

for relief stated in his complaint.

DATED this 23rd day of September, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02523-EHC-MEA Document 10 Filed 09/29/05 Page 6 of 6