Steven Hardy v. Arif Shaikh, 959 F.3d 578

Hardy, an inmate with a serious infected leg wound, entered Camp Hill in July 2017 but was housed first in the infirmary and did not receive the inmate handbook or grievance manual despite signing an acknowledgment that it would be provided.
He submitted a series of grievances (12 total between Dec. 2017 and Mar. 2018) about denied medical treatment; many were rejected for varied procedural reasons (illegibility, scope, time-bar, or categorized as frivolous).
After several rejections, his assigned counselor told him to "fill out another one and send it in," rather than instructing him to appeal rejections; an appeal actually required indicating "appeal" on the grievance form.
Hardy followed the counselor’s advice, continued to resubmit grievances, and did not pursue formal appeals; months later additional amputation occurred.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Hardy failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the PLRA; the District Court granted summary judgment, finding the grievance process was "available" and the counselor’s statement was not a ‘‘clear misrepresentation.’'
The Third Circuit reversed, holding misleading (not just clear) misrepresentations can render administrative remedies unavailable and that Hardy met the test for being thwarted by misrepresentation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prison staff misrepresentation can render administrative remedies "unavailable" under the PLRA	Misleading guidance from counselor made appeals unavailable so Hardy exhausted remedies	Only a "clear" misrepresentation can thwart exhaustion; process remained available	Misleading or deceptive statements (not only "clear" ones) can make a remedy unavailable under Ross
What showing is required to prove a misrepresentation "thwarted" exhaustion	Court should accept that counselor’s advice plus lack of access to manuals shows thwarting	Hardy failed to appeal and had a duty to ascertain appeal rules	Two-part test: (1) objective — a reasonable inmate would be entitled to rely and be misled; (2) subjective — the inmate actually relied to his detriment
Application to Hardy’s facts: did the counselor’s advice and access restrictions defeat exhaustion?	Counselor’s advice, combined with no handbook/library access, misled Hardy into resubmitting rather than appealing	Hardy could have written "appeal" on a form or sought info elsewhere; rejections should have signaled appeals requirement	Counselor’s instruction was objectively misleading and Hardy credibly (and reasonably) relied on it; remedies were unavailable and thus exhausted
Procedural outcome	Allow case to proceed on merits	Affirm summary judgment for defendants	Third Circuit reversed summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings

Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (sets three categories when grievance process is "unavailable")
Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2002) (misleading instructions can excuse exhaustion)
Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2018) (adopts objective/subjective framework for intimidation; applied analogously here)
Davis v. Hernandez, 798 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2015) (prison staff misleading about steps can render remedies unavailable)
Townsend v. Murphy, 898 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2018) (officials' misleading advice can prevent required appeals)