Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02173/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02173-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

WILLIAM PHILLIP CONEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE, JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

CAPTAIN PETERSON,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2173 PHX EHC (MEA)

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

[Dkt. #11].

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint [Dkt. #1]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 8, 2004, and an

amended complaint [Dkt. #5] on December 6, 2004. On April 25,

2005, the Court ordered Defendant to answer Plaintiff’s

allegation that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights, while Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee in the

Maricopa County jail facility, by subjecting him to

overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions. [Dkt. #7]. 

Case 2:04-cv-02173-EHC-MEA Document 17 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 6
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 -

 Defendants waived service and filed a motion to dismiss

[Dkt. #11] on July 14, 2005. Defendants assert that the

amended complaint must be dismissed, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1997e, because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies regarding the claims stated in the amended complaint

prior to filing his section 1983 suit. In an order [Dkt. #13]

issued July 19, 2005, Plaintiff was warned by the Court that

his failure to respond to the motion to dismiss within thirty

days could be deemed consent to the entry of judgment against

Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 7.2, United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

As of September 21, 2005, Plaintiff has not responded to or

filed any pleading otherwise opposing Defendants’ motion to

dismiss.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard for granting motion to dismiss

When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must take the

factual allegations of the complaint as true and construe them

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Galbraith

v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002);

Epstein v. Washington Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.

1996). Additionally, pro se complaints are held to a less

strict standard than those drafted by counsel. See Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976). It is

not appropriate to dismiss a pro se prisoner’s civil rights

action unless it is “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove

Case 2:04-cv-02173-EHC-MEA Document 17 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 6
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 -

no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.” Id.

B. Exhaustion

Exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) is governed by 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a). This statute provides that “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983

of this title, 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) (2003 & Supp. 2005). This

language has been interpreted to require “that an inmate must

exhaust [available remedies] irrespective of the forms of

relief sought and offered through administrative avenues.”

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, n.6 (2001). The

exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about

prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or

particular episodes.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532

(2002). 

A plaintiff must fully exhaust his administrative

remedies before filing a section 1983 complaint. McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002). To fully

exhaust a section 1983 claim, a prisoner must pursue his

grievance to the highest administrative level available to

him. See Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720, 726 (6th Cir. 2003);

Harper v. Jenkin, 179 F.3d 1311, 1312 (11th Cir. 1999); Morgan

v. Maricopa County, 259 F. Supp. 2d 985, 990-91 & n.13 (D.

Ariz. 2003). Exhaustion is an affirmative defense;

Case 2:04-cv-02173-EHC-MEA Document 17 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 6
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 -

establishing exhaustion of administrative remedies under the

PLRA is not a pleading requirement or a jurisdictional

prerequisite. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 50 (2003); Giano v. Goord, 380

F.3d 670, 675 (2d Cir. 2004). Therefore, Defendant has “the

burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.”

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. 

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the

PLRA is treated as a matter in abatement and is properly

raised in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Id. “In

deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust

nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings

and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. “If the

district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted

nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal of the

claim without prejudice.” Id. at 1120.

Detainees complaining about the conditions encountered at

a Maricopa County jail facility may pursue an administrative

grievance in accordance with the three-step process outlined

in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedure

manual. The inmate first files a grievance which is heard by

a shift supervisor. The inmate may appeal an adverse decision

by the shift supervisor by filing an Institutional Grievance

Appeal, which is determined by a jail commander. The third

step in the process is to file an External Grievance Appeal

regarding any adverse decision by the jail commander. [Dkt.

#11, Attach.]

Case 2:04-cv-02173-EHC-MEA Document 17 Filed 09/30/05 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

Defendants aver that Plaintiff has not exhausted his

administrative remedies and that Plaintiff admits that he did

not exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 2.

Rule 7.2, United States District Court for the District

of Arizona Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a

party’s failure to respond to a motion may, in the Court’s

discretion, be deemed a consent to the Court’s granting of

judgment in favor of the movant. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18

F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). When the Court has warned

the non-moving part that their failure to respond “‘shall

constitute a consent’” to the granting of the motion, the

Court may properly exercise its discretion to a motion based

on the non-moving party’s construed consent. Id. See also

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding

that the district court did not abuse its discretion by

summarily granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant

to a local rule where the pro se plaintiff had time to respond

to the motion but failed to do so). 

Defendants have asserted that Plaintiff has not exhausted

his administrative remedies, a prerequisite to filing his

suit. Plaintiff does not contest Defendants’ assertion that

he has failed to fulfill a prerequisite to filing his section

1983 complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to plead

facts which establish that he has stated a claim for relief.

Case 2:04-cv-02173-EHC-MEA Document 17 Filed 09/30/05 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

Conclusion

Plaintiff has failed to allege or to show that he has

exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his claim

regarding jail overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt.

#11] is GRANTED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to the claim

for relief stated in his complaint.

DATED this 27th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02173-EHC-MEA Document 17 Filed 09/30/05 Page 6 of 6