Ross v. Blake

Syllabus

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 15–339. Argued March 29, 2016—Decided June 6, 2016 Two guards—James Madigan and petitioner Michael Ross—undertook to move respondent Shaidon Blake, a Maryland inmate, to the prison's seg- regation unit. During the transfer, Madigan assaulted Blake, punching him several times in the face. Blake reported the incident to a correc- tions officer, who referred the matter to the Maryland prison system's Internal Investigative Unit (IIU). The IIU, which has authority under state law to investigate employee misconduct, issued a report condemn- ing Madigan's actions. Blake subsequently sued both guards under 42

U. S. C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and failure to take protective

action. A jury found Madigan liable. But Ross raised (as an affirma- tive defense) the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Re- form Act of 1995 (PLRA), which demands that an inmate exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before bringing suit to chal- lenge prison conditions. § 1997e(a). Ross argued that Blake had filed suit without first following the prison's prescribed procedures for ob- taining an administrative remedy, while Blake argued that the IIU in- vestigation was a substitute for those procedures. The District Court sided with Ross and dismissed the suit. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that “special circumstances” can excuse a failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements—particularly where the inmate reasonably, even though mistakenly, believed he had sufficiently ex- hausted his remedies.

is inconsistent with the text and history of the PLRA. Pp. 638–642. (a) The PLRA speaks in unambiguous terms, providing that “[n]o action shall be brought” absent exhaustion of available administrative remedies. § 1997e(a). Aside from one significant qualifier—that ad- ministrative remedies must indeed be “available”—the text suggests no limits on an inmate's obligation to exhaust. That mandatory language means a court may not excuse a failure to exhaust, even to take “special circumstances” into account. When it comes to statutory exhaustion provisions, courts have a role in creating exceptions only if Congress wants them to. So mandatory exhaustion statutes like the PLRA es- tablish mandatory exhaustion regimes, foreclosing judicial discretion.

Cite as: 578 U. S. 632 (2016) 633 Syllabus

See, e. g., McNeil v. United States, 508 U. S. 106. Time and again, this Court has rejected every attempt to deviate from the PLRA's textual mandate. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U. S. 731; Porter v. Nussle, 534

U. S. 516; Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U. S. 81. All those precedents rebut

the Fourth Circuit's “special circumstances” excuse for non-exhaustion.

Pp. 638–640. (b) The PLRA's history further underscores the mandatory nature of its exhaustion regime. The PLRA replaced a largely discretionary exhaustion scheme, see Nussle, 534 U. S., at 523, removing the condi- tions that administrative remedies be “plain, speedy, and effective,” that they satisfy federal minimum standards, and that exhaustion be “appro- priate and in the interests of justice.” The Court of Appeals' exception, if applied broadly, would resurrect that discretionary regime, in which a court could look to all the particulars of a case to decide whether to excuse a failure to exhaust. And if the exception were confined to cases in which a prisoner makes a reasonable mistake about the meaning of a prison's grievance procedures, it would reintroduce the requirement that the remedial process be “plain.” When Congress amends legisla- tion, courts must “presume it intends [the change] to have real and sub- stantial effect.” Stone v. INS, 514 U. S. 386, 397. But the Court of Appeals acted as though no amendment had taken place. Pp. 640–642.

2. Blake's contention that the prison's grievance process was not in

fact available to him warrants further consideration below. Pp. 642–649. (a) Blake's suit may yet be viable. The PLRA contains its own, textual exception to mandatory exhaustion. Under § 1997e(a), an in- mate's obligation to exhaust hinges on the “availab[ility]” of administra- tive remedies. A prisoner is thus required to exhaust only those griev- ance procedures that are “capable of use” to obtain “some relief for the action complained of.” Booth, 532 U. S., at 738.

As relevant here, there are three kinds of circumstances in which an administrative remedy, although officially on the books, is not capable of use to obtain relief. First, an administrative procedure is unavailable when it operates as a simple dead end—with officers unable or consist- ently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates. Next, an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use—i. e., some mechanism exists to provide re- lief, but no ordinary prisoner can navigate it. And finally, a grievance process is rendered unavailable when prison administrators thwart in- mates from taking advantage of it through machination, misrepresenta- tion, or intimidation. Pp. 642–644. (b) The facts of this case raise questions about whether, given these principles, Blake had an “available” administrative remedy to exhaust.

Ross's exhaustion defense rests on Blake's failure to seek relief through

Syllabus

Maryland's Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP) process, which be- gins with a grievance to the warden. That process is the standard method for addressing inmate complaints in the State's prisons. But Maryland separately maintains the IIU to look into charges of prison staff misconduct, and the IIU did just that here. Blake urged in the courts below that once the IIU commences such an inquiry, a prisoner cannot obtain relief through the ARP process. And in this Court, the parties have lodged additional materials relating to the interaction between the IIU and the ARP. Both sides' submissions, although scat- tershot and in need of further review, lend some support to Blake's account.

Blake's filings include many administrative dispositions indicating that Maryland wardens routinely dismiss ARP grievances as procedur- ally improper when parallel IIU investigations are pending. In addi- tion, Blake has submitted briefs of the Maryland attorney general spe- cifically recognizing that administrative practice. And Ross's own submissions offer some confirmation of Blake's view: Ross does not iden- tify a single case in which a warden considered the merits of an ARP grievance while an IIU inquiry was underway. On remand, the Fourth Circuit should perform a thorough review of such materials, and then address whether the remedies Blake did not exhaust were “available” under the legal principles set out here. Pp. 645–648.

787 F. 3d 693, vacated and remanded.

Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post,

p. 649. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, post, p. 649.

Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Thiruven- dran Vignarajah, Deputy Attorney General, Matthew J.

Fader, and Patrick B. Hughes, Stephanie Lane-Weber, and Dorianne A. Meloy, Assistant Attorneys General.

Zachary D. Tripp argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Verrilli, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mizer, Deputy Solicitor General Ger- shengorn, Barbara L. Herwig, Rupa Bhattacharyya, and Dana Kaersvang.

Cite as: 578 U. S. 632 (2016) 635 Opinion of the Court

Paul W. Hughes argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Reginald R. Goeke and Michael B.

Kimberly.* Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) man- dates that an inmate exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before bringing suit to challenge prison con- ditions. 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a). The court below adopted an unwritten “special circumstances” exception to that provi- sion, permitting some prisoners to pursue litigation even when they have failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. Today, we reject that freewheeling approach to exhaustion as inconsistent with the PLRA. But we also un- derscore that statute's built-in exception to the exhaustion

*A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the State of West Virginia et al. by Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General of West Virginia, Elbert Lin, Solicitor General, Julie Warren and Erica N. Peterson, Assist- ant Attorneys General, by Bruce R. Beemer, First Deputy Attorney Gen- eral of Pennsylvania, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Luther Strange of Alabama, Craig W. Richards of Alaska, Mark Brnovich of Arizona, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Cynthia Coffman of Colorado, George Jepsen of Connecticut, Pamela Jo Bondi of Florida, Samuel S. Olens of Georgia, Douglas S. Chin of Hawaii, Law- rence G. Wasden of Idaho, Gregory Zoeller of Indiana, Tom Miller of Iowa, Derek Schmidt of Kansas, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, James D. “Buddy” Caldwell of Louisiana, Janet T. Mills of Maine, Bill Schuette of Michigan, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Tim Fox of Montana, Douglas J. Peterson of Nebraska, Adam Paul Laxalt of Nevada, Joseph A. Foster of New Hamp- shire, Hector Balderas of New Mexico, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Mike DeWine of Ohio, E. Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma, Ellen F. Rosenblum of Oregon, Peter F. Kilmartin of Rhode Island, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Herbert H. Slatery III of Tennes- see, Ken Paxton of Texas, Sean D. Reyes of Utah, Mark R. Herring of Virginia, Robert W. Ferguson of Washington, Brad D. Schimel of Wiscon- sin, and Peter K. Michael of Wyoming.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Legal Aid Society of New York et al. by John Boston; and for the National Police Accountability Project et al. by Christopher Wimmer.

Opinion of the Court

requirement: A prisoner need not exhaust remedies if they are not “available.” The briefs and other submissions filed in this case suggest the possibility that the aggrieved inmate lacked an available administrative remedy. That issue re- mains open for consideration on remand, in light of the prin- ciples stated below.

Respondent Shaidon Blake is an inmate in a Maryland prison. On June 21, 2007, two guards—James Madigan and petitioner Michael Ross—undertook to move him from his regular cell to the facility's segregation unit. According to Blake's version of the facts, Ross handcuffed him and held him by the arm as they left the cell; Madigan followed close behind. Near the top of a flight of stairs, Madigan shoved Blake in the back. Ross told Madigan he had Blake under control, and the three continued walking. At the bottom of the stairs, Madigan pushed Blake again and then punched him four times in the face, driving his head into the wall.

After a brief pause, Madigan hit Blake one last time. Ross kept hold of Blake throughout the assault. And when the blows subsided, Ross helped Madigan pin Blake to the ground until additional officers arrived.

Later that day, Blake reported the assault to a senior cor- rections officer. That officer thought Madigan at fault, and so referred the incident to the Maryland prison system's In- ternal Investigative Unit (IIU). Under state law, the IIU has authority to investigate allegations of employee miscon- duct, including the use of “excessive force.” Code of Md.

Regs., tit. 12, § 11.01.05(A)(3) (2006). After conducting a year-long inquiry into the beating, the IIU issued a final re- port condemning Madigan's actions, while making no findings with respect to Ross. See App. 191–195. Madigan re- signed to avoid being fired.

Blake subsequently sued both guards under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that Madigan had used unjustifiable force and that Ross had failed to take protective action. The claim

Cite as: 578 U. S. 632 (2016) 637 Opinion of the Court

against Madigan went to a jury, which awarded Blake a judgment of $50,000. But unlike Madigan, Ross raised the PLRA's exhaustion requirement as an affirmative defense, contending that Blake had brought suit without first fol- lowing the prison's prescribed procedures for obtaining an administrative remedy. As set out in Maryland's Inmate Handbook, that process—called, not very fancifully, the Ad- ministrative Remedy Procedure (ARP)—begins with a for- mal grievance to the prison's warden; it may also involve appeals to the Commissioner of Correction and then the In- mate Grievance Office (IGO). See Maryland Div. of Correc- tion, Inmate Handbook 30–31 (2007). Blake acknowledged that he had not sought a remedy through the ARP—because, he thought, the IIU investigation served as a substitute for that otherwise standard process. The District Court re- jected that explanation and dismissed the suit, holding that “the commencement of an internal investigation does not re- lieve prisoners from the [PLRA's] exhaustion requirement.” Blake v. Maynard, No. 8:09–cv–2367 (D Md., Nov. 14, 2012), App. to Pet. for Cert. 38, 2012 WL 5568940, *5.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed in a divided decision. Stating that the PLRA's “exhaustion requirement is not absolute,” the court adopted an extra- textual exception originally formulated by the Second Cir- cuit. 787 F. 3d 693, 698 (2015). Repeated the Court of Ap- peals: “[T]here are certain `special circumstances' in which, though administrative remedies may have been available[,] the prisoner's failure to comply with administrative proce- dural requirements may nevertheless have been justified.” Ibid. (quoting Giano v. Goord, 380 F. 3d 670, 676 (CA2 2004)).

In particular, that was true when a prisoner “reasonably”— even though mistakenly—“believed that he had sufficiently exhausted his remedies.” 787 F. 3d, at 695. And Blake, the court concluded, fit within that exception because he reason- ably thought that “the IIU's investigation removed his com- plaint from the typical ARP process.” Id., at 700. Judge

Opinion of the Court

Agee dissented, stating that the PLRA's mandatory exhaus- tion requirement is not “amenable” to “[j]udge-made ex- ceptions.” Id., at 703. This Court granted certiorari. 577

The dispute here concerns whether the PLRA's exhaustion requirement, § 1997e(a), bars Blake's suit. Statutory text and history alike foreclose the Fourth Circuit's adoption of a “special circumstances” exception to that mandate. But Blake's suit may yet be viable. Under the PLRA, a prisoner need exhaust only “available” administrative remedies.

And Blake's contention that the prison's grievance process was not in fact available to him warrants further consider- ation below.

Statutory interpretation, as we always say, begins with the text, see, e. g., Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U. S. 242, 251 (2010)—but here following that approach at once distances us from the Court of Appeals. As Blake acknowledges, that court made no attempt to ground its anal- ysis in the PLRA's language. See 787 F. 3d, at 697–698; Brief for Respondent 47–48, n. 20 (labeling the Court of Appeals' rule an “extra-textual exception to the PLRA's exhaustion requirement”). And that failure makes a dif- ference, because the statute speaks in unambiguous terms opposite to what the Fourth Circuit said.

Section 1997e(a) provides: “No 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 adminis- trative remedies as are available are exhausted.” As we have often observed, that language is “mandatory”: An in- mate “shall” bring “no action” (or said more conversationally, may not bring any action) absent exhaustion of available ad- ministrative remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U. S. 81, 85

Cite as: 578 U. S. 632 (2016) 639 Opinion of the Court

(2006); accord, Jones v. Bock, 549 U. S. 199, 211 (2007) (“There is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA”). As later discussed, that edict contains one sig- nificant qualifier: The remedies must indeed be “available” to the prisoner. See infra, at 642–644. But aside from that exception, the PLRA's text suggests no limits on an in- mate's obligation to exhaust—irrespective of any “special circumstances.” And that mandatory language means a court may not ex- cuse a failure to exhaust, even to take such circumstances into account. See Miller v. French, 530 U. S. 327, 337 (2000) (explaining that “[t]he mandatory `shall' . . . normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion”). No doubt, judge-made exhaustion doctrines, even if flatly stated at first, remain amenable to judge-made exceptions. See McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 193 (1969) (“The doc- trine of exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . is, like most judicial doctrines, subject to numerous exceptions”).

But a statutory exhaustion provision stands on a different footing. There, Congress sets the rules—and courts have a role in creating exceptions only if Congress wants them to.

For that reason, mandatory exhaustion statutes like the PLRA establish mandatory exhaustion regimes, foreclosing judicial discretion. See, e. g., McNeil v. United States, 508

U. S. 106, 111, 113 (1993) (“We are not free to rewrite the

statutory text” when Congress has strictly “bar[red] claim- ants from bringing suit in federal court until they have ex- hausted their administrative remedies”). Time and again, this Court has taken such statutes at face value—refusing to add unwritten limits onto their rigorous textual require- ments. See, e. g., id., at 111; Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U. S. 1, 12–14 (2000); see also 2 R.

Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.3, p. 1241 (5th ed.

2010) (collecting cases).

We have taken just that approach in construing the PLRA's exhaustion provision—rejecting every attempt to

Opinion of the Court

deviate (as the Fourth Circuit did here) from its textual man- date. In Booth v. Churner, 532 U. S. 731 (2001), for example, the prisoner argued that exhaustion was not necessary be- cause he wanted a type of relief that the administrative proc- ess did not provide. But § 1997e(a), we replied, made no dis- tinctions based on the particular “forms of relief sought and offered,” and that legislative judgment must control: We would not read “exceptions into statutory exhaustion re- quirements where Congress has provided otherwise.” Id., at 741, n. 6. The next year, in Porter v. Nussle, 534 U. S.

516, 520 (2002), the Court rejected a proposal to carve out excessive-force claims (like Blake's) from the PLRA's ex- haustion regime, viewing that approach too as inconsistent with the uncompromising statutory text. And most re- cently, in Woodford, we turned aside a requested exception for constitutional claims. 548 U. S., at 91, n. 2. Our expla- nation was familiar: “We are interpreting and applying” not a judge-made doctrine but a “statutory requirement,” and therefore must honor Congress's choice. Ibid.1 All those precedents rebut the Court of Appeals' adoption of a “special circumstances” excuse for non-exhaustion.

So too, the history of the PLRA underscores the manda- tory nature of its exhaustion regime. Section 1997e(a)'s pre- cursor, enacted in the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Per- sons Act (CRIPA), § 7, 94 Stat. 352 (1980), was a “weak exhaustion provision.” Woodford, 548 U. S., at 84. Under CRIPA, a court would require exhaustion only if a State pro-

1 We note that our adherence to the PLRA's text runs both ways: The same principle applies regardless of whether it benefits the inmate or the prison. We have thus overturned judicial rulings that imposed extra- statutory limitations on a prisoner's capacity to sue—reversing, for exam- ple, decisions that required an inmate to demonstrate exhaustion in his complaint, permitted suit against only defendants named in the adminis- trative grievance, and dismissed an entire action because of a single unex- hausted claim. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U. S. 199, 203 (2007). “[T]hese rules,” we explained, “are not required by the PLRA,” and “crafting and imposing them exceeds the proper limits on the judicial role.” Ibid.

Cite as: 578 U. S. 632 (2016) 641 Opinion of the Court

vided “plain, speedy, and effective” remedies meeting federal minimum standards—and even then, only if the court be- lieved exhaustion “appropriate and in the interests of jus- tice.” § 7(a), 94 Stat. 352. That statutory scheme made ex- haustion “in large part discretionary.” Nussle, 534 U. S., at

523. And for that reason (among others), CRIPA proved

inadequate to stem the then-rising tide of prisoner litigation.

In enacting the PLRA, Congress thus substituted an “invig- orated” exhaustion provision. Woodford, 548 U. S., at 84. “[D]iffer[ing] markedly from its predecessor,” the new § 1997e(a) removed the conditions that administrative reme- dies be “plain, speedy, and effective” and that they satisfy minimum standards. Nussle, 534 U. S., at 524. Still more, the PLRA prevented a court from deciding that exhaustion would be unjust or inappropriate in a given case. As de- scribed earlier, see supra, at 638–639, all inmates must now exhaust all available remedies: “Exhaustion is no longer left to the discretion of the district court.” Woodford, 548 U. S., at 85.

The PLRA's history ( just like its text) thus refutes a “spe- cial circumstances” exception to its rule of exhaustion. That approach, if applied broadly, would resurrect CRIPA's scheme, in which a court could look to all the particulars of a case to decide whether to excuse a failure to exhaust avail- able remedies. But as we have observed, such wide-ranging discretion “is now a thing of the past.” Booth, 532 U. S., at

739. And the conflict with the PLRA's history (as again

with its text) becomes scarcely less stark if the Fourth Cir- cuit's exception is confined, as the court may have intended, to cases in which a prisoner makes a reasonable mistake about the meaning of a prison's grievance procedures. Un- derstood that way, the exception reintroduces CRIPA's requirement that the remedial process be “plain”—that is, not subject to any reasonable misunderstanding or disagree- ment. § 7(a), 94 Stat. 352. When Congress amends legisla- tion, courts must “presume it intends [the change] to have

Opinion of the Court

real and substantial effect.” Stone v. INS, 514 U. S. 386, 397 (1995). The Court of Appeals instead acted as though the amendment—from a largely permissive to a mandatory ex- haustion regime—had not taken place.2

Yet our rejection of the Fourth Circuit's “special circum- stances” exception does not end this case—because the PLRA contains its own, textual exception to mandatory exhaustion. Under § 1997e(a), the exhaustion requirement hinges on the “availab[ility]” of administrative remedies: An inmate, that is, must exhaust available remedies, but need not exhaust unavailable ones. And that limitation on an in- mate's duty to exhaust—although significantly different from the “special circumstances” test or the old CRIPA stand- ard—has real content. As we explained in Booth, the ordi- nary meaning of the word “available” is “ `capable of use for the accomplishment of a purpose,' and that which `is accessi- ble or may be obtained.' ” 532 U. S., at 737–738 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 150 (1993)); see also Random House Dictionary of the English Language 142 (2d ed. 1987) (“suitable or ready for use”); 1 Oxford Eng- lish Dictionary 812 (2d ed. 1989) (“capable of being made use of, at one's disposal, within one's reach”); Black's Law Dic- tionary 135 (6th ed. 1990) (“useable”; “present or ready for immediate use”). Accordingly, an inmate is required to ex- haust those, but only those, grievance procedures that are “capable of use” to obtain “some relief for the action com- plained of.” Booth, 532 U. S., at 738.

2 Of course, an exhaustion provision with a different text and history from § 1997e(a) might be best read to give judges the leeway to create exceptions or to itself incorporate standard administrative-law exceptions.

See 2 R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.3, p. 1245 (5th ed. 2010).

The question in all cases is one of statutory construction, which must be resolved using ordinary interpretive techniques.

Cite as: 578 U. S. 632 (2016) 643 Opinion of the Court

To state that standard, of course, is just to begin; courts in this and other cases must apply it to the real-world work- ings of prison grievance systems. Building on our own and lower courts' decisions, we note as relevant here three kinds of circumstances in which an administrative remedy, al- though officially on the books, is not capable of use to obtain relief. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 27–29 (Solicitor General as ami- cus curiae acknowledging these three kinds of unavailabil- ity). Given prisons' own incentives to maintain functioning remedial processes, we expect that these circumstances will not often arise. See Woodford, 548 U. S., at 102. But when one (or more) does, an inmate's duty to exhaust “available” remedies does not come into play.

First, as Booth made clear, an administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a simple dead end— with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates. See 532 U. S., at 736, 738.

Suppose, for example, that a prison handbook directs inmates to submit their grievances to a particular administrative of- fice—but in practice that office disclaims the capacity to con- sider those petitions. The procedure is not then “capable of use” for the pertinent purpose. In Booth's words: “[S]ome redress for a wrong is presupposed by the statute's require- ment” of an “available” remedy; “where the relevant admin- istrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief,” the inmate has “nothing to exhaust.” Id., at 736, and n. 4. So too if administrative officials have apparent authority, but decline ever to exercise it. Once again: “[T]he modifier `available' requires the possibility of some relief.” Id., at

738. When the facts on the ground demonstrate that no

such potential exists, the inmate has no obligation to exhaust the remedy.

Next, an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use. In this

Opinion of the Court

situation, some mechanism exists to provide relief, but no ordinary prisoner can discern or navigate it. As the Solici- tor General put the point: When rules are “so confusing that . . . no reasonable prisoner can use them,” then “they're no longer available.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 23. That is a signifi- cantly higher bar than CRIPA established or the Fourth Cir- cuit suggested: The procedures need not be sufficiently “plain” as to preclude any reasonable mistake or debate with respect to their meaning. See § 7(a), 94 Stat. 352; 787 F. 3d, at 698–699; supra, at 637, 640–642. When an administrative process is susceptible of multiple reasonable interpretations, Congress has determined that the inmate should err on the side of exhaustion. But when a remedy is, in Judge Carnes's phrasing, essentially “unknowable”—so that no ordinary prisoner can make sense of what it demands—then it is also unavailable. See Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F. 3d 1312, 1323 (CA11 2007); Turner v. Burnside, 541 F. 3d 1077, 1084 (CA11 2008) (“Remedies that rational inmates cannot be expected to use are not capable of accomplishing their purposes and so are not available”). Accordingly, exhaustion is not required.

And finally, the same is true when prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance proc- ess through machination, misrepresentation, or intimida- tion. In Woodford, we recognized that officials might de- vise procedural systems (including the blind alleys and quagmires just discussed) in order to “trip[ ] up all but the most skillful prisoners.” 548 U. S., at 102. And appellate courts have addressed a variety of instances in which offi- cials misled or threatened individual inmates so as to prevent their use of otherwise proper procedures. As all those courts have recognized, such interference with an inmate's pursuit of relief renders the administrative process unavail- able.3 And then, once again, § 1997e(a) poses no bar.

3 See, e. g., Davis v. Hernandez, 798 F. 3d 290, 295 (CA5 2015) (“Griev-

ance procedures are unavailable . . . if the correctional facility's staff misled the inmate as to the existence or rules of the grievance process so as to

Cite as: 578 U. S. 632 (2016) 645 Opinion of the Court

The facts of this case raise questions about whether, given these principles, Blake had an “available” administrative remedy to exhaust. As explained earlier, Ross's exhaustion defense rests on Blake's failure to seek relief through Mary- land's ARP process, which begins with a grievance to the warden and may continue with appeals to the Commissioner of Correction and the IGO. See supra, at 637; Inmate Hand- book, at 30–31. That process is the standard method for addressing inmate complaints in the State's prisons: The In- mate Handbook provides that prisoners may use the ARP for “all types” of grievances (subject to four exceptions not relevant here), including those relating to the use of force.

Id., at 30; see App. 312. But recall that Maryland separately maintains the IIU to look into charges of staff misconduct in prisons, and the IIU did just that here. See supra, at 636.

Blake urged in the courts below that once the IIU com- mences such an inquiry, a prisoner cannot obtain relief through the standard ARP process—whatever the Handbook may say to the contrary. See 787 F. 3d, at 697; App. to Pet. for Cert. 38, 2012 WL 5568940, *5. And in this Court, that issue has taken on new life. Both Blake and Ross (as repre- sented by the Maryland attorney general) have lodged addi- tional materials relating to the interaction between the IIU and the ARP. And both sides' submissions, although scat-

cause the inmate to fail to exhaust such process” (emphasis deleted)); Schultz v. Pugh, 728 F. 3d 619, 620 (CA7 2013) (“A remedy is not available, therefore, to a prisoner prevented by threats or other intimidation by prison personnel from seeking an administrative remedy”); Pavey v. Con- ley, 663 F. 3d 899, 906 (CA7 2011) (“[I]f prison officials misled [a prisoner] into thinking that . . . he had done all he needed to initiate the grievance process,” then “[a]n administrative remedy is not `available' ”); Tuckel v. Grover, 660 F. 3d 1249, 1252–1253 (CA10 2011) (“[W]hen a prison official inhibits an inmate from utilizing an administrative process through threats or intimidation, that process can no longer be said to be `available' ”); Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F. 3d 1312, 1323 (CA11 2007) (If a prison “play[s] hide-and-seek with administrative remedies,” then they are not “available”).

Opinion of the Court

tershot and in need of further review, lend some support to Blake's account—while also revealing Maryland's grievance process to have, at least at first blush, some bewildering features.

Blake's filings include many administrative dispositions (gleaned from the records of other prisoner suits) indicating that Maryland wardens routinely dismiss ARP grievances as procedurally improper when parallel IIU investigations are pending. One warden, for example, wrote in response to a prisoner's complaint: “Your Request for Administrative Remedy has been received and is hereby dismissed. This issue has been assigned to the Division of Correction's Inter- nal Investigative Unit (Case #07–35–010621I/C), and will no longer be addressed through this process.” Lodging of Re-

This is being investigated outside of the ARP process by

Maryland attorney general (again, drawn from former pris- oner suits) specifically recognizing that administrative prac- tice. As the attorney general stated in one case: “Wilkerson filed an ARP request,” but “his complaint already was being investigated by the [IIU], superceding an ARP investiga- tion.” Id., at 23–24; see also, e. g., id., at 5 (Bacon's griev- ance “was dismissed because the issue had been assigned to [the] IIU and would no longer be addressed through the ARP process”).4

4 Blake further notes that in 2008, a year after his beating, Maryland amended one of its prison directives to state expressly that when the IIU investigates an incident, an ARP grievance may not proceed. See App.

367, Md. Div. of Correction, Directive 185–003, § VI(N)(4) (Aug. 27, 2008) (The warden “shall issue a final dismissal of [an ARP] request for proce- dural reasons when it has been determined that the basis of the complaint is the same basis of an investigation under the authority of the [IIU]”); Brief for Respondent 17–18. According to Blake, that amendment merely codified what his submissions show had long been the practice in Maryland prisons. See ibid.

Cite as: 578 U. S. 632 (2016) 647 Opinion of the Court

And Ross's own submissions offer some confirmation of Blake's view. Ross does not identify a single case in which a warden considered the merits of an ARP grievance while an IIU inquiry was underway. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6 (Mary- land attorney general's office conceding that it had found none). To the contrary, his lodging contains still further evi- dence that wardens consistently dismiss such complaints as misdirected. See, e. g., Lodging of Petitioner 15 (District Court noting that “Gladhill was advised that no further ac- tion would be taken through the ARP process because the matter had been referred to the [IIU]”). Indeed, Ross's ma- terials suggest that some wardens use a rubber stamp spe- cially devised for that purpose; the inmate, that is, receives a reply stamped with the legend: “Dismissed for procedural reasons . . . . This issue is being investigated by IIU case number: –––. No further action shall be taken within the ARP process.” Id., at 25, 32, 38; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 8– 9 (Maryland attorney general's office conceding the stamp's existence and use).

Complicating the picture, however, are several cases in which an inmate refused to take a warden's jurisdictional “no” for an answer, resubmitted his grievance up the chain to the IGO, and there received a ruling on the merits, with- out any discussion of the ARP/IIU issue. We confess to finding these few cases perplexing in relation to normal ap- pellate procedure. See id., at 3–10, 13–15, 18–20 (multiple Justices expressing confusion about Maryland's procedures).

If the IGO thinks the wardens wrong to dismiss complaints because of pending IIU investigations, why does it not say so and stop the practice? Conversely, if the IGO thinks the wardens right, how can it then issue merits decisions? And if that really is Maryland's procedure—that when an IIU in- vestigation is underway, the warden (and Commissioner of Correction) cannot consider a prisoner's complaint, but the IGO can—why does the Inmate Handbook not spell this out?

Are there, instead, other materials provided to prisoners

Opinion of the Court

that communicate how this seemingly unusual process works and how to navigate it so as to get a claim heard?

In light of all these lodgings and the questions they raise about Maryland's grievance process, we remand this case for further consideration of whether Blake had “available” reme- dies to exhaust. The materials we have seen are not conclu- sive; they may not represent the complete universe of rele- vant documents, and few have been analyzed in the courts below. On remand, in addition to considering any other ar- guments still alive in this case, the court must perform a thorough review of such materials, and then address the legal issues we have highlighted concerning the availability of administrative remedies. First, did Maryland's standard grievance procedures potentially offer relief to Blake or, al- ternatively, did the IIU investigation into his assault fore- close that possibility? Second, even if the former, were those procedures knowable by an ordinary prisoner in Blake's situation, or was the system so confusing that no such inmate could make use of it? And finally, is there persua- sive evidence that Maryland officials thwarted the effective invocation of the administrative process through threats, game-playing, or misrepresentations, either on a system- wide basis or in the individual case? If the court accepts Blake's probable arguments on one or more of these scores, then it should find (consistent this time with the PLRA) that his suit may proceed even though he did not file an ARP complaint.

Courts may not engraft an unwritten “special circum- stances” exception onto the PLRA's exhaustion requirement.

The only limit to § 1997e(a)'s mandate is the one baked into its text: An inmate need exhaust only such administrative remedies as are “available.” On remand, the court below must consider how that modifying term affects Blake's case—that is, whether the remedies he failed to exhaust were “available” under the principles set out here. We

Cite as: 578 U. S. 632 (2016) 649 Breyer, J., concurring in part

therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Thomas, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I join the Court's opinion except for the discussion of Maryland's prison-grievance procedures, ante, at 645–648, which needlessly wades into respondent Shaidon Blake's questionable lodgings of new documents in this Court.

Those documents are not part of the appellate record. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 10(a). We have “consistently con- demned” attempts to influence our decisions by submitting “additional or different evidence that is not part of the certi- fied record.” S. Shapiro, K. Geller, T. Bishop, E. Hartnett, &

D. Himmelfarb, Supreme Court Practice § 13.11(k), p. 743

(10th ed. 2013). Perhaps Blake's newfound documents are subject to judicial notice as public records. See Fed. Rule Evid. 201. But I would not take such notice for the first time in this Court. It appears that Blake had a chance to submit many of his documents to the lower courts and failed to do so. Taking notice of the documents encourages games- manship and frustrates our review. I would let the Court of Appeals decide on remand whether to supplement the record, see Fed. Rule App. Proc. 10(e), or take notice of Blake's lodgings.

Justice Breyer, concurring in part. I join the opinion of the Court, with the exception that I described in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U. S. 81 (2006). There, I agreed that “Congress intended the term `exhausted' to `mean what the term means in administrative law, where ex- haustion means proper exhaustion.' ” Id., at 103 (opinion concurring in judgment). Though that statutory term does not encompass “freewheeling” exceptions for any “ `special

Breyer, J., concurring in part

circumstanc[e],' ” ante, at 635, it does include administrative law's “well-established exceptions to exhaustion,” Woodford, supra, at 103 (opinion of Breyer, J.). I believe that such exceptions, though not necessary to the Court's disposition of this case, may nevertheless apply where appropriate.