Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01690/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01690-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Freeland
Defendant
George Herring
Defendant
Enrique Mendez
Plaintiff
Michael Simmons
Defendant
Johnny Tucker
Defendant

Document Text:

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

 Defendants Herring and Simmons have been dismissed from

this matter.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ENRIQUE MENDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

GEORGE HERRING, JOHNNY

TUCKER, JEFFREY FREELAND,

MICHAEL SIMMONS, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1690 PHX JAT (DKD)

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’1 Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. #15).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who has been deemed a vexatious litigant and

who must seek leave to file section 1983 complaints in the

Court, filed a motion seeking leave to file a civil rights

complaint on June 6, 2005. On July 5, 2005, Plaintiff was

granted leave to file his complaint (Doc. #4). The complaint

seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief

Case 2:05-cv-01690-JAT-DKD Document 23 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 7
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 -

from Defendants Tucker and Freeland, sued in their individual

and official capacities. Id. 

On July 5, 2005, the Court granted leave to file the

complaint. The Court dismissed two of the claims stated in

the amended complaint and ordered Defendants Tucker and

Freeland to answer Plaintiff’s allegation that they violated

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by failing to protect him

from other inmates. See Doc. #5. In the order issued July 5,

2005, Plaintiff was ordered to notify the Court if his address

changed. See id. Plaintiff was also notified that, if he was

released from custody, Plaintiff was obligated to pay the

filing fee for this section 1983 action within 120 days of the

date he was released or, absent a showing of good cause,

Plaintiff’s action would be dismissed. See id. 

Defendants were served with the amended complaint. See

Doc. #9 & Doc. #10. On July 30, 2005, Plaintiff was released

from the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections.

See Doc. #13.

On September 30, 2005, Defendants filed a Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. #15). Defendants argue

that the only remaining claim stated in the complaint must be

dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) because Plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding this

claim. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s claim for

injunctive relief is moot because Plaintiff has been released

from custody, and that Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages

from Defendants named in their official capacities is barred

by the Eleventh Amendment. 

Case 2:05-cv-01690-JAT-DKD Document 23 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 7
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 -

Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss on

October 26, 2005 (Doc. #20), and Defendants filed a Reply to

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

#21). 

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

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

him to relief.” Id.

B. Exhaustion of administrative remedies

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). An inmate must exhaust

Case 2:05-cv-01690-JAT-DKD Document 23 Filed 12/02/05 Page 3 of 7
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 -

available administrative remedies “irrespective of the forms

of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues.”

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, n.6, 121 S. Ct. 1819,

1825 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,

122 S. Ct. 983, 992 (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). Additionally, the Court should not “read futility

or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements”

where the statute provides for no such exceptions. Booth, 532

U.S. at 741, 121 S. Ct. at 1825.

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense; 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). Therefore, Defendants “have the

burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.” Id.

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. See 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

Case 2:05-cv-01690-JAT-DKD Document 23 Filed 12/02/05 Page 4 of 7
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 -

nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal of the

claim without prejudice.” Id. at 1120. 

Plaintiff asserts he did not grieve his claim that he was

raped by another inmate and was denied proper medical care

following this incident because he was told the issue was not

grievable. The federal courts have concluded that an

assertion that pursuing administrative remedies would be

futile does not, standing alone, excuse an individual’s

failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing

a section 1983 action. See, e.g., Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304

F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002); Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3D

150-51 (2d Cir. 2001). The evidence presented by Defendants

indicates that there was an administrative process available

to Plaintiff, which he previously utilized to grieve a claim

similar to the claim presented in this matter, and that

Plaintiff did not pursue his administrative remedies with

regard to the endangerment claim stated in his complaint

lodged June 6, 2005. Based on Plaintiff's failure to grieve

this claim, the Court concludes that Plaintiff failed to

exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing

his complaint and it must be dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

Additionally, to the extent that Defendants argue that

Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief against them as

individuals acting in their official capacities is barred by

the Eleventh Amendment, Defendants are entitled to judgment as

a matter of law regarding Plaintiff’s claims for monetary

relief. See, e.g., Hale v. State of Ariz., 993 F.2d 1387,

Case 2:05-cv-01690-JAT-DKD Document 23 Filed 12/02/05 Page 5 of 7
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 -

1399 (9th Cir. 1993); Owen v. Lash, 682 F.2d 648, 655 (7th

Cir. 1982).

Conclusion

Plaintiff concedes that he did not exhaust his

administrative remedies regarding the claim stated in his

section 1983 complaint, and Defendants present evidence to the

Court that administrative remedies were available to Plaintiff

and that Plaintiff did, in fact, previously pursue an

administrative grievance with regard to a claim similar to

that stated in the complaint. Therefore, the Court concludes

that Plaintiff’s complaint as to the monetary damages sought

from Defendants in their individual capacities must be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to section 1997e because

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

regarding his claim prior to filing his section 1983 suit.

Because Defendants acting in their official capacities are

immune from a suit seeking monetary damages, Plaintiff’s

claims for monetary relief from Defendants acting in their

official capacities are dismissed with prejudice.

Additionally, because Plaintiff was released from custody

following the filing of his complaint, Plaintiff’s claims for

injunctive relief must be dismissed as moot. See McQuillion

v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004); Green

v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1997) . 

Case 2:05-cv-01690-JAT-DKD Document 23 Filed 12/02/05 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 -

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed without

prejudice with regard to his claims for monetary relief from

Defendants acting in their individual capacities. Plaintiff’s

complaint is dismissed with prejudice with regard to

Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief and with regard to

Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief from Defendants acting

in their official capacties.

DATED this 29th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01690-JAT-DKD Document 23 Filed 12/02/05 Page 7 of 7