Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03415/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03415-1/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

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Chris Humberto Arviso, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3415-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

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

(Doc. #10) for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff has failed to respond. After careful review of

these pleadings and the record, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Defendant Joseph Arpaio

violated his constitutional rights by (1) an inadequate and tainted diet, (2) overcrowding, and

(3) unsanitary conditions (Doc. #1). Defendant Arpaio was ordered to answer the Complaint,

and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies (Docs. ##5, 10). Attached to the motion was (1) an affidavit of

Sergeant Zelean Tademy, assigned to the Inmate Hearing Unit, (2) the Maricopa County

Inmate Grievance Procedures, and (3) the Maricopa County Rules and Regulations for

Inmates (Doc. #10).

Case 2:05-cv-03415-MHM-LOA Document 14 Filed 10/20/06 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 -

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.” 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 that Motion” (Doc. #12) Despite these

warnings, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Defendant’s motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

failure to respond may be construed as a consent to the granting of Defendant’s motion.

However, out of an abundance of caution, the merits of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will

be addressed.

III. 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). To be

“properly exhausted,” the prisoner “must complete the administrative review process in

accordance with the applicable rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit

in federal court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 

Case 2:05-cv-03415-MHM-LOA Document 14 Filed 10/20/06 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 -

 Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 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.” Id. at 1119-20. 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.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

IV. Analysis

An inmate should seek to resolve a conflict through the Maricopa County Jail

System’s Inmate Grievance Procedures. 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 to the jail commander, whose decision may be appealed to an External Referee. The

External Referee’s decision is final (Doc. #10, ex. A). Tademy attested that (1) the grievance

policies do not limit what an inmate may grievance, (2) detention officers pass out grievances

as part of their daily duties, and (3) Plaintiff filed four grievances, none related to unsanitary

conditions, the lack of quality and quantity of food, or overcrowding (Id., attached affidavit).

Defendant demonstrated the existence of a grievance system to which Plaintiff failed

to avail himself as to the claims raised in his Complaint. Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint

that the guards informed him that his complaints were not grievable. However, statements

allegedly made by unidentified detention officers, particularly considering Tademy’s

affidavit, is insufficient to support a conclusion that Plaintiff was “reliably informed” that

there were no available remedies. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir.

2005). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

Case 2:05-cv-03415-MHM-LOA Document 14 Filed 10/20/06 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #10) 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 18th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03415-MHM-LOA Document 14 Filed 10/20/06 Page 4 of 4