that he was prevented from filing grievances and appeals. In particular, the defendants responded to a claim, made in Smith’s Amended Complaint, that Defendant Diggs “ripped up [Smith’s] outgoing mail and [an District Court’s judgment in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . The motion noted that it was not filed on behalf of the additional defendants who had been named in Smith’s amended complaint because they had not been properly served. After the amended complaint was filed, the Distri s on questions of exhaustion, see Small, 728 F.3d at 271, the District Court erred to the extent that it concluded that Smith’s allegations were not credible. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)
holding that in determining the propriety of summary judgment credibility determinations may not be made  holding that credibility determinations are for the jury holding that credibility determinations should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if the resolution of material issues depends upon credibility determinations holding that the issue of defendants actual knowledge should not be resolved on summary judgment but should be left to the trier of fact