Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03293/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03293-1/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

 The only remaining Defendant in this action is the Pinal County Sheriff. The Pinal County

Sheriff filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 17) on November 6, 2006. 

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Curtis Reed Cooper, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3293-PHX-MHM (VAM)

ORDER

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

moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion (Doc. # 11). Plaintiff failed to respond, although he

was informed of his rights and obligations to do so (Doc. # 12). The Court will grant the

Defendant Arpaio's motion to dismiss.1

I. Exhaustion

Plaintiff must first exhaust “available” administrative remedies before bringing this

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). 

Case 2:05-cv-03293-MHM-MHB Document 18 Filed 11/20/06 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 -

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. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. 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).

II. Analysis

 In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the Lower Buckeye, Durango, and Estrella

Jails (1) served insufficient and spoiled meals, (2) were overcrowded, and (3) were extremely

unsanitary. (Doc. #1 at 4-6). For all three claims, Plaintiff averred that while a grievance

procedure exists at the jail, he failed to grieve any of his claims (Doc. # 1 at 4-6). Rather,

Plaintiff claimed that he was told his complaints were not grievable issues (Id.). The Court

required Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio to answer (Doc. # 4).

 Defendant Arpaio moved to dismiss for lack of exhaustion, relying upon the affidavit

of Sergeant Zelean Tademy, a Hearing Officer for inmate discipline and grievances. Tademy

asserts that Plaintiff filed one grievance related to Plaintiff's towels and linens (Tademy Aff.

¶ 13-14, Ex. 1, Doc. # 11). Tademy further attests that there are no grievances on file with

regard to meals, overcrowding, or unsanitary conditions at the jails (Id. at ¶ 15). 

Plaintiff was issued an Order containing the customary warnings regarding his

obligation to respond and the potential consequences for failing to do so (Doc. # 12). He was

specifically informed that if Defendant showed that he failed to exhaust, his action would be

dismissed unless he produced controverting evidence (Id. at 2). 

Plaintiff still failed to respond. In failing to respond to the motion, Plaintiff presented

nothing to contest Defendant's argument regarding exhaustion, and presented nothing to

support his own claim that he was told his complaints did not warrant grievances. As a

result, based on the evidence before this Court, Defendant Arpaio has met his burden of

demonstrating the absence of exhaustion, and the Court will grant his motion to dismiss.

///

Case 2:05-cv-03293-MHM-MHB Document 18 Filed 11/20/06 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

2

 Defendant Pinal County Sheriff remains in this action.

- 3 -

III. Lack of a Response

Alternately, the Court has the discretion under Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure to deem Plaintiff’s lack of response as consent to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff was warned of this possibility (Doc. # 12). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has

upheld a dismissal based on a failure to comply with 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. 

The first three factors do not favor Plaintiff, particularly in light of the fact that

Plaintiff was transferred out of the county jail during the course of this litigation and

apparently lost interest in prosecuting his action. There is no risk of prejudice to Defendant

to resolve the motion in his favor, and judicial efficiency also favors resolution of this action.

The fourth factor of favoring disposition of cases on their merits weighs in favor of Plaintiff,

and for the fifth factor, dismissal without prejudice is the least drastic sanction. In light of

the overall five-factor analysis weighing in Defendant’s favor, the Court will deem Plaintiff’s

lack of a response as a consent and dismiss the action without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Arpaio’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 11) is granted.

Defendant Arpaio is dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion or alternately, for

failure to respond. 2

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-03293-MHM-MHB Document 18 Filed 11/20/06 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 -

DATED this 16th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03293-MHM-MHB Document 18 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 4