Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00487/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00487-2/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

1

Upon screening, the Court dismissed Maricopa County as a Defendant (See Order,

Doc. #11).

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tommie Taylor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0487-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

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

moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. #13). 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 when he was denied recreation because of the overcrowded conditions at the county

jail1

 (Doc. #10). The Court ordered an answer to the Amended Complaint, and Defendant

filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. ##11, 13). The Court informed Plaintiff of his obligation

to respond and the evidence necessary to successfully rebut Defendant’s contentions (Doc.

Case 2:05-cv-00487-MHM-ECV Document 16 Filed 03/09/07 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 -

#14). Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss. The time for filing a response has

expired, and the motion is ready for ruling.

In his motion, Defendant contended that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

(Doc. #13). In support, Defendant submitted the affidavit of Susan Fisher, a Hearing Officer

for inmate discipline and grievances (Ex. 1, Doc. #13). Fisher attested that, according to the

sheriff’s office grievance records, Plaintiff filed three grievances during his confinement at

the jail (Fisher Aff. ¶ 4). She attested that two of these grievances concerned medical and

psychological care and one involved spoiled food (Id.). Fisher avowed that Plaintiff did not

submit any External Grievance Appeals – the last step in the grievance process – while he

was in custody (Id. ¶ 5). In addition to the affidavit, Defendant submitted a copy of the

Inmate Grievance Procedure, Policy DJ-3 (Ex. A, Doc. #13). 

II. Failure to Respond

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 and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” 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, the Court informed Plaintiff of his

obligation to respond to the motion, and that the failure to respond may “be deemed a consent

to the granting of that Motion” (Doc. #14). Despite these warnings, Plaintiff failed to

respond to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion may be construed

as a consent to the granting of it. However, the merits of Defendant’s motion will be

addressed.

III. Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss

Case 2:05-cv-00487-MHM-ECV Document 16 Filed 03/09/07 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 -

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). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 919-21 (2007).

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). 

IV. Analysis

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

Plaintiff’s claim (Fisher Aff. ¶ 3; Ex. A, Doc. #13). Contrary to Defendant’s assertion in the

Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff alleged in his Amended Complaint that he submitted a grievance

for his claim and appealed it to the highest level (See Doc. #13 at 2; Doc. #10 at 4). But

Defendant proffered evidence that the only grievances filed by Plaintiff during his

confinement were unrelated to the claim raised in this action (Fisher Aff. ¶ 4, Doc. #13).

Plaintiff was specifically informed that if Defendant’s motion included admissible evidence

to support his claim of nonexhaustion, Plaintiff’s action would be dismissed unless Plaintiff

submitted evidence – such as copies of grievances or sworn declarations – to rebut

Defendant’s claim (See Order, Doc. #14 at 1-2). In failing to respond to the motion, Plaintiff

presented nothing to refute Defendant’s evidence demonstrating that there is no record of any

grievances regarding overcrowding or any External Appeals filed by Plaintiff. 

Based on the record before the Court, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available

Case 2:05-cv-00487-MHM-ECV Document 16 Filed 03/09/07 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 -

administrative remedies for his claim of lack of recreation due to overcrowding.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion will be granted. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #13) 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 8th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00487-MHM-ECV Document 16 Filed 03/09/07 Page 4 of 4