David Gambino v. Bobby Meeks, 712 F. App'x 128

David Gambino, a federal prisoner, sued FCI‑McKean officials under Bivens alleging denial of emergency medical care, pre/post-emergency medical denial, retaliation, and obstruction of reporting to investigators.
Gambino filed informal resolution forms (June 30, 2014) and two Administrative Remedy Requests (Sept. 3, 2014) which the Bureau of Prisons rejected the same day for failing to request a remedy; prison records show no properly filed subsequent submissions.
Gambino produced rejection notices and evidence of delayed responses from staff, and alleged threats, false misconduct reports, and disability that impeded access to the administrative process.
Defendants submitted a Paralegal Specialist declaration and computer records showing only the two rejected Requests and no appeals; they argued Gambino failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
The Magistrate Judge found a factual dispute about availability of the grievance process but recommended dismissal on other grounds; the District Court granted summary judgment solely for failure to exhaust, and the Third Circuit summarily affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gambino exhausted administrative remedies under PLRA	Gambino says staff denied access by mishandling grievances, delayed informal responses, issued threats/false reports, and his disabilities impeded exhaustion	Defendants show rejection notices permitted resubmission; Gambino failed to refile or appeal; grievance procedures (including sensitive‑issue bypass) were available	Gambino failed to exhaust; summary judgment affirmed
Whether administrative process was rendered unavailable by staff intimidation	Gambino points to threats and false misconduct reports as deterrents	Defendants note Gambino nonetheless filed informal forms and Requests, so no deterrence showing	Allegations insufficient to create factual dispute of unavailability
Whether denial/mishandling of grievances excused exhaustion	Gambino argues rejections and delays prevented proper exhaustion	Defendants show rejections included instructions to resubmit; Gambino did not resubmit	Mishandling/delay did not excuse exhaustion because Gambino could have resubmitted or used available procedures
Whether 28 C.F.R. §542.14(d)(1) sensitive‑issue bypass was unavailable	Gambino prepared a Regional Appeal marked “Sensitive” and wrote "not safe"	Defendants argue the sensitive‑issue bypass remained available and Gambino did not show it was obstructed	Court: no factual basis that the sensitive‑issue bypass was unavailable; Gambino did not invoke it properly

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishes implied damages action against federal officers)
Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2000) (standard of review for appellate review of district court decisions)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (PLRA requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies; availability is a threshold inquiry)