Free Response - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 ANDREW P. THOMAS
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
2
By: MARIA R. BRANDON
3 State Bar No. 004249
REBECCA C. SALISBURY
4 State Bar No. 022006
Deputy County Attorneys
5 MCAO Firm No. 00032000
6 CIVIL DIVISION
Security Center Building
7 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206
8 Telephone (602) 506-8541
9 Attorneys for Sheriff Arpaio, and
Officer Montoya #A8052
10
11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
13 Randy Trimble, NO. CV 04-0745-PHX-PGR (DKD)
14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
"PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
15 v. RELIEF"
16 Phoenix Police, et al.,
17 Defendants.
18
19 Defendants Sheriff Arpaio and Officer Montoya #A8052, hereby respond
20 to plaintiff’s pleading entitled "PreIiminary injunction ReIief," having previously
21 moved that said pleading be stricken as not in accordance with the Federal
22 Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65, or this Court’s Screening Order.
Cas 2:04-cv—00745—PGR—DKD Document 177I Filed 03/29/2006 Page 1 of 3

1 Mr. Trimble lacks standing to request a preliminary injunction relating to
2 the loaf program in the Maricopa County Jails since he is not an inmate in the
3 Maricopa County Jail system. Mr. Trimble, according to State of Arizona
4 records and his own admission, presently resides with the Arizona Department
5 of Corrections at Lewis Prison in Buckeye, Arizona. He is not incarcerated in
6 the Maricopa County jail and therefore lacks standing to request a preliminary
7 injunction relating to conditions therein.
8 Even if Mr. Trimble were a resident of the Maricopa County Jails, to
9 maintain a claim related to Plaintiffs condition of confinement, Plaintiff would
10 have to show that he had exhausted all administrative remedies. The plain
11 language of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e requires that all prison administrative remedies
12 must be exhausted as to all of the claims. See Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884
13 (8th Cir. 2000); Ross v. Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004); Mubarak v.
14 California Dep’t. of Corr., 315 F. Supp. 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2004). Plaintiff would
15 have to show that he tiled grievances regarding the issues of inadequate diet at
16 the jail, and that he exhausted the remedies available to him.
17
18
19 f
20 . . .
21 . . .
22 . . .
Cas 2:04-cv-00745-PGB—DKD Document 17; Filed O3/29/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 Therefore, his request for "Preliminary injunction ReIief" must be denied.
2 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of March 2006.
3 ANDREW P. THOMAS
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
4 ·
5
BY: s/Maria R. Brandon
6 MARIA R. BRANDON
Deputy County Attorney
7 Attorneys for Defendants Sheriff
Arpaio and Officer Montoya #A8052
8
9 ORIGINAL of the foregoing E-FILED
and copy mailed this 29th day of
10 March 2006, to:
11 Honorable Paul G. Rosenblatt
United States District Court Judge
12 Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 621
401 West Washington Street, SPC 56
13 Phoenix, AZ 85003
14 Honorable David K. Duncan
United States Magistrate Judge
15 Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 325
401 West Washington Street, SPC 14
16 Phoenix, AZ 85003
17 Randy Trimble #191671
ASPC-Lewis-Morey Unit
18 PO Box 3300
Buckeye, AZ 85326
19 Plaintiff pro se I
20
s/Elizabeth Jordan
21
cJ¤4-we
22 S:\COUNSEL\Civil\Matters\CJ\2004\Trimble v. Phoenix Police CJO4-103\PIeadings\resptoPreIiminarylnjunctionReIief.doc
Cas 2:O4—cv-OO745-PGR—DKD Document 1773 Filed O3/29/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00745-PGR-DKD

Document 177

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00745-PGR-DKD

Document 177

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00745-PGR-DKD

Document 177

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 3 of 3