Arnold v. Goetz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, because the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is an affirmative defense rather than jurisdictional, motions to dismiss based on that requirement should be made pursuant to 12(b)(6) rather than 12(b)(1)
• finding the “chorus of ... courts of appeals to be irresistible and manifestly correct”
• finding a prisoner who was told that an inmate grievance process existed, but who was frustrated by officials in his attempts to learn how to use it, did not have recourse to an “available” administrative remedy
• inmate’s claims of ignorance of administrative remedy raised question of fact whether the remedy was available
• “In essence, prison officials cannot have it both ways — they cannot obstruct an inmate’s pursuit of administrative exhaustion on the one hand and then claim the inmate did not properly exhaust these remedies on the other.”
• “An institution keeps an inmate ignorant of the grievance procedure when correctional officials either fail to inform him of the procedure altogether or fail to provide him with access to materials which could otherwise educate him about the use of that process.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).