administrative remedy form” in October 2011. The defendants argued that even if the allegations about Defendant Diggs were true, Smith could have submitted his grievances and appeals when Defendant D argued that although Smith submitted additional IRSF complaints in July 2012, he did not receive responses to those initial grievances before filing his amended complaint on July 19, 2012. Indeed, Smith filed his amended complaint prior to the expiration of the 30-day period within which correctional staff may review and respond to initial grievances. See N.J. Admin. Code § 10A:1-4.5(e). Therefore, as to the claims related to the I RSFs that were submitted in July 2012, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. See Small v. Camden Cnty., 728 F.3d 265, 273 (3d Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we will affirm in part, vacate
holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court holding that prisoners noncompliance with written grievance procedures did not constitute a failure to exhaust since prison officials had told him that written procedures were not accurate holding that the plra mandates that prisoners exhaust internal prison grievance procedures before filing suit emphasis added holding that under the plra an inmate must exhaust available remedies prior to filing suit holding that plaintiffs failure to exhaust available grievance procedures does not bar her title vii claims