194 F.3d 37, 48 (2d Cir.1999). In other words, the analysis is the same for pretrial and convicted detainees. 3 . To the extent Defendants would rely on this fact to assert the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (see Defs.' Reply Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. To Dismiss (“Defs.’ Reply.”) 3 (Dkt No. 72) (asserting that "the [C]omplaint does not indicate that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform A WL 3808813, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2010) ("Courts have consistently held ... that an inmate's general claim that his grievance was lost or destroyed does not excuse his exhaustion requirement.”), adopted by 2010 WL 3809991 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2010); Veloz v. New York, 339 F.Supp.2d 505, 516 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 178 Fed.Appx. 39 (2d Cir.2006). In any
holding that the plaintiffs evidence that his back injury precluded him from performing at least 50 of the jobs previously available to him was enough to classify him as disabled under the ada holding the plaintiffs allegation that correction officers either prevented or discouraged him from filing his complaint on the same day the event occurred  raises estoppel as a second potential excuse for nonexhaustion holding that the plaintiffs allegation that these particular grievances were misplaced or destroyed by correctional officers ultimately does not relieve him of the requirement to appeal these claims to the next level once it became clear to him that a response to his initial filing was not forthcoming holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel on the strength of gonzalezs sworn responses at the pleataking that no one was threatening him or forcing him to plead where the defendant alleged that his attorney forced him to plead guilty  and threatened him if he did not take the plea holding that inmates allegation that guards destroyed his legal materials in retaliation for his filing of suits and grievances stated a cognizable first amendment claim