Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01159/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01159-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Aaron Kritz, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1159-PHX-PGR (ECV)

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed

September 10, 2007, wherein the defendant seeks the dismissal of the entirety of

this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that the plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. On September 17, 2007,

Magistrate Judge Voss entered an order (doc. #10) that (1) advised the plaintiff of

the filing of the motion to dismiss, (2) advised him of the procedural requirements

of LRCiv 7.2(e) for responding to a motion to dismiss, (3) warned him that his

failure to file a timely response could lead to the dismissal of this action pursuant

to LRCiv 7.2(i), and (4) ordered him to file a response to the motion to dismiss no

later than October 17, 2007. A review of the record establishes that the plaintiff

has not made any effort to date to respond to the motion to dismiss or to seek

any extension of time for doing so.

Case 2:07-cv-01159-PGR-ECV Document 12 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 As a result of the Court’s screening order (doc. #6), the remaining

claims that are the subject of the motion to dismiss are Counts V, VI, VII, XIII,

XVIII, XXII, and XXIV.

- 2 -

The Court finds that the motion to dismiss should be granted in its entirety

pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i) because the plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion is

deemed to be his consent to the granting of it. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d

651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994).

The Court further finds that the motion to dismiss should be granted on its

merits because the record establishes that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies as to any of the seven claims remaining in his complaint,

all of which arose from the plaintiff’s period of incarceration in the Maricopa

County jail.1

 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), no action by a prisoner related to

prison conditions may be brought until all available administrative remedies are

exhausted. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). The

uncontroverted evidence submitted by the defendant establishes that a grievance

procedure was available to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff did not file any

grievances while incarcerated. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. #9) is granted

and that this action is dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 16th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01159-PGR-ECV Document 12 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2