Perttu v. Richards

Perttu's claim implicates the PLRA's exhaustion requirement because he filed a Section 1983 suit without completing the prison's grievance process, triggering the threshold question of whether exhaustion was actually required. Under Ross v. Blake, exhaustion applies only to remedies that are genuinely available; Perttu's allegation that corrections officials actively interfered with his ability to file a proper grievance invokes the availability exception—if officials obstructed the remedy, the requirement falls away. The central issue becomes whether Perttu established sufficient facts showing the remedy was rendered unavailable through official obstruction, which determines whether the exhaustion bar applies to defeat his suit. This case clarifies the evidentiary and procedural standard by which courts assess prisoner claims that the administrative remedy has been effectively blocked.