was not working. This interpretation of Smith’s allegations, which the District Court adopted, is too narrowly focused on Defendant Diggs’ alleged role. In his opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Smith did not limit his claims of interference to Defendant Diggs, but instead asserted that there is a “NSP culture of not processing, nor responding to IRSF[ ] complaints against correctional guards.” In sum, we conclude that Smiths’ allegations concerning the unavailability of the grievance process,, coupled with uncontro-verted evidence of his efforts to exhaust administrative remedies, raised a genuine issue of material fact which should have precluded entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. See Surles v. Andison, 678 F.3d 452, 457-58 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). We note, however, that the defendants
holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate holding that summary judgment was improper where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether prison officials prevented inmate from filing grievances