Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

_V V LV V V § Y"' V V I . . . . V ` -‘ M *3
V 1 Carlos A. Powell V
2 #10090-023 D/U 325 j I -,,, - I 3 -
FCI—Victorv:i.l1e 1 I " FILED I ICD .
3 3 P.0. Bcxm# IEKQD./{ENT IS Nm IN PROPER F rm Hsnspvgb "" GED
Adelant¤c;cc1II.m1r~@213>€>I—1Z·sBm£1¤Ir~rDI0R LOCALR .. I —-G9"?
0 I AND PRACTICES AND LS SUBJECT TO :¢·· I: In J
_ * __ BY THE COURT. I I I AN 0 9 2005 3
V1 I ` I C£Em 5 _ I1`! :4:.s:n:I·:s..·r¤— V .. VV¤*$`*VFNgIV;V§I3Vi:=§i§COUHT V
I (Rulc Nu1nbcdScc1i¤11) " -. V V OMA I V I
6 I I Dspury
8 I I STATES DISTRICT COURT ·
-9 . DISTRICT OP ARIZONA VV
10 M. VV E _ - _
11 _ Carlos Arthur Powellp V -No: # CIV 03-1819 PHX-JAT V
12 · gP,la:Lnti3ff, V Hon: James A. Teilborg _
_ .13 I I V. f _ S- 9 V PIAIN'1‘IFF'S `V
f N C. Miles, et al..,V ` V MOTION TO DISlIJZS£_¥I‘TB ®
3 I , — OF LAW ‘
15 ` Respondents. AND EXHIBITS. 1
1BVVVV VV
, · 17 I . A NOW COMES the glaintiff in this action, Carlos Arthur Powell V
IB . in propia perspnbn and hereby files his rebuttal to the Mtion to —
. 19 Dismiss filed on the Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, allege f
20 ing th·at the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedy. I V
21 A A Memorandum of Law and Exhibits -‘ e at hed. I _
= . I Res - subm ttad·*this 2nd _ I
23 •'I¤ .
24 V V _ I V· , .0 - I V Y
I I I =· »e!=:I{!¢¤·'· I
25 . I O - - arlos Arthur Powell, pro-SeV
I _ · I #10090-023 D/U 325 4
3 26 I . . - P.O. Box # 5300, `Victorville
_ 27 Adelanto, CP. 92301-5300
I 28 . I V 3 _ . -
_ I li :`{ JM r
, 3 ®2¤·'"€.°.§’£.... 0 I J
V 3 Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT _ D0cument158 Filed O1/O9/2006 PageV10f!ZQ I VV ‘ .

1 C t
2 a Plaintiff conctrs with the defendants'_coIloguy as to the
3 ;Prison Litigation Reform·Act ("Ph3hP)being the requisite of_the.
4 flaw to file suit. Plaintiff further stipulates that he was infact
5 given a copy of the regulations and policies as to what is called
6 administrative remedies which would be available to inmates.
7 g “ 28 C.F.R. S 542, which_is_Program l v
8 ’§ Statement P$.l33U.13", s A p
9 i Plaintiff is also knowledgable as to 42 U.S.C. s 1997e(a},
10 iwhich was quoted by counsel in his Motion for Dismissal.,
h Y l -_ } 4
.. 11 i- No action shall be brought with respect to
’ i _prison conditions under section 1979 of the
12 Revised Statutes of the United States{42 USC—& .
h 1983), or any other Federal Law, by a prisoner » "
13 confinsdgin any jail, prison, or other correct ‘
g tional facility...until such administrative re-
14 g medies as are available are exhausted. l _
15 l Plaintiff concurs that the exhaustion process does promote
, · 5 .3 p q a ‘
16 .§important interests. Counsel then implied that the plaintiff has
17 ffailed to exhaust the claim of being labelled a snitch.
18 5 Interesting1y, although this case has been prolonged by this
19 counsel, continuously, and manipulatively, the court has simply
20 iirefused to properly sanction these matters. Now again, after this
21 Court has ordered thegplaintiff to file his 'Second Amended Com-
22 iplaint', Counsel decides to allege the failure of exhaustion.
23lj Counsel is filing SHA! pleadings in this case-because the
_ 24 §Court had alreadyireviewed the exhaustion, and this was part of
25 leach of the Amended complaints. However the final exhaustion is
l · l » . _ h i p · c
‘ 26 the general counsel for the Bureau of Prisons, Central office by
27 ,28 cna 5 542.17. C i ·
28 C 2 ‘
i Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT ll0cument158 Filed O1/O9/2006 Page20f4 ‘

n 1‘i Plaintiff now contends that he has more than adequately
p12- exhausted the administrative remedies require .befO1§'e -_fili1'19`· y ‘.
d fy "H 131. ~i The Prison Litigation Reform act (ELQA) is for the purpose”d·
wi i _ n .4a of »g;viag*tne officials.a.fair'dpportunity to address the prob- ii.
ti i.. 5V lem that will later form the basis as the prisoner's suit? Civil tn
d · ‘6- Rights or Institutionalized Persons hot. §7ia),i42ydSC'§.1997e{a) i_·. I
i 28 c.F.1z. s 542. · V l' i
2 8 5 · In the instant Motion to Dismiss, the_defendants failed to .
§ I 9i state that the plaintiff was insufficient as to give them ample ‘
% I 10 -'notice' in which to address the prohlem. Ig this case had com-
E ill- menced because the defendants had refused.to sign.or date the I
i i .121i numerous efforts on the exhaustion steps.-(Theseiwerefmade a l
i n 131 part of the record of this case) Since they intentionally viola-
in . 14 nited their own regulations as required in P.S. 1330.l3(5)a{4), 28 i“
E 15 CFR S 542.11 and section 13 SENTRY information remedy processing}
E 16 the plaintiff had to follow the process,[see S 542.18].. i
% 17 Therefore, the defendants can hardly say that the plaintif
Q 18 failed to comply with the rufes when they have violated the rule
Q 19 which they must strongly adhere. (Note: gf. Gates v. Cook, 376
i A 20 F.3d 323, 331 & n¢6 (Sth Cir. 2D04)(holding that prison official
i 21 could not argue that a prisoner's grievance failed to comply*wit‘
i 22 procedural rules when the officials had looked past the purport-
{ 23 L ed technical defect and rejected the grievance). In this case it
24 is clear that the plaintiff addressed the 'snitch' issue in his
E 25 numerous efforts for assistance.
S _. 26 Since the plaintiff had filed that retaliation was the
o 27 very means in this case, and that endangerment had occurred
Q I Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT Document 158 Filed O1/O9/2006 Page30f4 ,

¤ 1 WH HEEORE, plaintiff prays that the Court will grant
· 3 the following reliefly(l) Deny the Motion to Dismiss, for lack .
n 3 P_of factual substance. (2) That it deny the Amended Interrogatory
` _ 4 ibeoause it was to beia sworn answer and for impeachment purpose.
5P Finally consider the sanctions fit for counsel's action in the _
6 ‘ case. ' I si P _ P P I h 2 P
I 7P And any other relief this Court finds fit to grant. 0 Pi P
C . 9 Dated this jg da? ofPJ&¤uafY,2006._ P D A
10 z _ _. _ M-\ ll A
11 2 P A P C- los A. Powell 1 P
. 4 x 12 _ P si P P ” P 2
13 i _) . `P _ , P
2 14 Original of the foregoing mailed
this jzgéday of January 2006 to: 2 P .
15 * P - · ·
16 Clerk of Court _ P P h
.4 Richard Weare,P PP 4 . P
. 17 _401 W. washington P J 2 _ -.
` Phoenix, AZ 85003 P g
- I I I ' ’
1 and copies tO: I P I ` x
20 Honorable Judge James A; Teilborg n n 0
U.S. District Court 4 P P . -z P P
2l 401 West Washington _ " P
P Phoenix, AZ 850033 P
2 22 P 2 P
I 23 Danie ·. Struck =nd Timothy J. Bojanowski an
- •¤ * - Centra_ Av. # 800 P _ - - C. ·
24 : Mzon. 85Dl$. _ 2_ ` ‘ r
25 *—ll§Q!z&In‘4IL.dkiJlL.- _ l y _ 2 P 2
26 P Carlos (Charles) A. Powell _ P
’ _ 28 _ P l A i 0 l
Case 2:03-cv-012819-JAT Document 158 Filed O1/O9/2006 Page 4 of 4 P i

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 158

Filed 01/09/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 158

Filed 01/09/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 158

Filed 01/09/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 158

Filed 01/09/2006

Page 4 of 4