Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03526/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03526-1/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

 Defendant incorrectly argues that “when a prison states multiple claims, and fails to exhaust

only one claim, the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety” (Doc. #7 at 2). See Lira v.

Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed, No. 05-878 (Jan. 6, 2006).

However, because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any unexhausted claims, this misstatement

is immaterial.

BL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond Drinkhouse, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3526-PHX-DGC (VAM)

ORDER

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

(Doc. #7) for lack of exhaustion and for Summary Disposition (Doc. #12). Plaintiff has

failed to respond. The Court will grant Defendant’s motions. 

A. Background

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Joseph M.

Arpaio, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by (1) an inadequate diet,

(2) deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and (3) overcrowding (Doc. #1). This Court

ordered Arpaio to answer Plaintiff’s claims regarding diet and overcrowding, and dismissed

without prejudice Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs (Doc. #4).

Defendant Arpaio subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies (Doc. # 7).1

 Attached to the Motion were (1) a copy of

Case 2:05-cv-03526-DGC-VAM Document 14 Filed 06/20/06 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 -

Plaintiff’s Complaint, (2) an affidavit by Zalean Tademy, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

Hearing Officer for inmate discipline and grievances, (3) Maricopa County Inmate Grievance

Procedure, and (4) examples of grievances filed by other inmates (Doc. #7). Plaintiff failed

to reply, and Defendant subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, requesting

that the action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b) (Doc.

#12).

B. 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, in the

instructions for a prisoner filing a civil rights complaint, the notice of assignment, and the

service order, Plaintiff repeatedly was notified that he must inform this Court of any change

of address (Docs. ## 2, 4). 

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). Moreover, “[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). 

 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 the 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. #10, 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

Case 2:05-cv-03526-DGC-VAM Document 14 Filed 06/20/06 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 -

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.

C. 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

(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). 

 “The defendants have the burden of raising and proving a prisoner’s failure to exhaust

under the PLRA.” 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) motion and “may look beyond the pleadings and

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

“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal so long as no

exception to exhaustion applies.” Id. at 1120. 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.” Id. at 1120; see also Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005),

petition for cert. filed, No. 05-878 (Jan. 6, 2006).

D. 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

Case 2:05-cv-03526-DGC-VAM Document 14 Filed 06/20/06 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 -

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

Referee’s decision is final. Tademy attested that (1) the detention officers pass out grievance

forms as part of their daily shift duties, (2) grievances are not ignored, and (3) Plaintiff has

filed grievances on matters not at issue in the instant action, and has not filed any external

appeals (Doc. #7, exh. 1)

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

available to the Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff, failing to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, has

presented nothing to support a conclusion that he availed himself of that system. In his

Complaint, Plaintiff states that they “do not do anything about policies,” “they only do what

policies say,” and they cannot “do anything about population of jail.” However, Plaintiff

does not indicate that he 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, and Defendant’s

Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Disposition will be granted.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss (Doc. #7) and for Summary

Disposition (Doc. #12) are 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 19th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03526-DGC-VAM Document 14 Filed 06/20/06 Page 4 of 4