an inmate must “complfy] with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). The statute, however, requires an inmate to exhaust only “such administrative remedies as are available” before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Malik v. District of Columbia, 574 F.3d 781, 785 (D.C.Cir.2009). In other words, the PLRA does not bar an inmate from suing before he exhausts an administrative remedy if that remedy is not actually “available” to him. An administrative remedy is actually “available” to an inmate only if it is “present or ready for immediate use,” “accessible,” or “obtainable.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 84 (11th ed.2004); see also Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); accord Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740
holding that judicial review under the apa is precluded when a remedy is available under a citizen suit provision of an environmental statute citations omitted holding that it is the inefficacy of the remedy not the personal inability to use it that is determinative under  2255 holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief holding a remedy is available under the plra when it is capable of use at hand  quoting websters ii new riverside univ dictionary 141 1994 holding that a thwarted remedy is not available