13:95-8.5).) However, this grievance procedure is not included in either of the Handbooks that were provided to O’Neill. While Defendants cite to the N.J.A.C. as containing this provision, they fail to point to any evidence demonstrating that they made reasonable efforts to make O’Neill aware of this process in any way. Absent any evidence that juveniles at JJC-operated facilities were educated about this procedure or had access to the materials necessary to utilize it, the Court cannot find this to be an available remedy that O’Neill was required to exhaust. See Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir.2003)(administrative remedy unavailable where prison officials did not provide the required grievance forms); see also Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1323 (11th Cir.2007)(<HOLDING>); Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 688 (2d
holding that an administrative remedy which is unknown and unknowable is unavailable holding quantum meruit unavailable to remedy invalid contract holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy holding that an administrative remedy was made unavailable after correctional officers did not respond to a grievance and there was no regulation addressing such a situation recognizing that administrative agencies routinely apply equitable estoppel in administrative hearings and that permitting them to do so is consistent with administrative remedy exhaustion requirements and separation of powers