Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00586/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00586-0/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

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathon Andrew Hinton, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-CV-586-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that while he was incarcerated at the

Durango Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using

excessive force ("count I"), and violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to

provide him with medical treatment ("count II"). Defendants move to dismiss count II for

the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have before us defendants' motion to

dismiss count II (doc. 17), plaintiff's response (doc. 20), defendants' reply (doc. 26),

plaintiff's further opposition (doc. 28), and defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's further

opposition (doc. 30). Plaintiff did not respond to defendants' motion to strike and the time

for filing a response has expired.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies

as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Maricopa County Sheriff's

Case 2:05-cv-00586-FJM-LOA Document 32 Filed 05/08/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Office, which operates the Durango Jail, has implemented a comprehensive grievance

system, which includes a multi-tiered administrative review process. Motion to Dismiss,

Attachment A (Inmate Grievance Procedure); Reply, Exhibit 2 (Rules and Regulations for

Inmates). An inmate must complete each level of the administrative process in order to have

fully exhausted his remedies.

The process allows an inmate to proceed with an appeal even if the institution is

unresponsive to a grievance. With regard to a non-medical grievance, if an inmate does not

receive a response after 9 calendar days, he may file an Institutional Grievance Appeal with

the Jail Commander. Rules and Regulations for Inmates at 12. With regard to a medical

grievance, if an inmate does not receive a response after 9 calendar days, he may submit a

Grievance Appeal Form to the Nursing Supervisor. Id. at 17.

Plaintiff filed two separate grievances requesting medical treatment, and grieving the

failure to provide medical treatment. Response, Exhibits 1-2. Plaintiff contends that

defendants never responded to either grievance. Because plaintiff could have nonetheless

filed an appeal pursuant to the grievance procedure, and he does not contend that he

attempted to and was prevented from doing so by the institution, he failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion

to dismiss count II (doc. 17).

In our order dated March 29, 2006 (doc. 27), we withdrew the reference to the

Magistrate Judge as to defendants' motion to dismiss count II. Defendants' motion to strike

relates to defendants' motion to dismiss count II and is ready for consideration. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED WITHDRAWING the reference to the Magistrate Judge as to

defendants' motion to strike (doc. 30). All other matters in this action shall remain with the

Magistrate Judge for disposition as appropriate.

Case 2:05-cv-00586-FJM-LOA Document 32 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

After defendants filed their reply, plaintiff filed a "further opposition to defendants[']

motion to dismiss" (doc. 28). A sur-reply such as this is impermissible absent leave of the

court. See LRCiv 7.2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion

to strike plaintiff's further opposition (doc. 30).

DATED this 5th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00586-FJM-LOA Document 32 Filed 05/08/06 Page 3 of 3