785, 788-89 (E.D.Cal. 1998) (§ 1983 claim); Gibbs v. Bureau of Prison Office, 986 F.Supp. 941, 944 (D.Md.1997)(Bivens claim). However, other district courts have held that such inmates need not comply with § 1997e(a)'s exhaustion requirement in prison grievance systems that do not award monetary relief. See, e.g., Lacey v.C.S.P. Solano Med. Staff, 990 F.Supp. 1199, 1205 (E.D.Cal. 1997)(§ 1983. claim); Harris v. Mugarrab, 1998 WL 246450, at *3 (N.D.Ill. May 1, 1998) (§ 1983 claim); Jackson v. DeTella, 998 F.Supp. 901, 904 (N.D.Ill.1998) (§ 1983 claim); Keeling v. Ford, 1998 WL 566664, at *2 (D.Kan. Aug.21, 1998) (Bivens claim); Polite v. Barbarin, 1998 WL 146687, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.2 ment may have the effect of improving the conditions of inmates’ confinement. See Sal-lee, at 771 (<HOLDING>); Beeson, 28 F.Supp.2d at 895 (holding that
recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional holding that where a prisons procedure did not require naming particular officials in a grievance a court rule imposing such an exhaustion requirement was not warranted holding that exhaustion provides prisons with the knowledge to provide a safer environment