deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate in part, reverse in part, and remand. The district court held that Cunningham failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), despite the fact that his grievances were rejected as untimely, and Cunningham contends that he was told by the prison’s grievance coordinator that he “would not obtain any relief for medical grievances through this procedure.” The district court decided this case before our decision in Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936-37 (9th Cir.2005), which discusses the defendant’s burden to prove that further administrative remedies are “available.” See also Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we remand to the district court
recognizing that officials failure timely to respond to grievance could be basis for prisoner to show he exhausted available administrative remedies recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different recognizing that a prisoner satisfied the exhaustion requirement by showing his grievance had been rejected as untimely because he could go no further in the prisons administrative system no remedies remained available to him holding prisoners timebarred grievance satisfied plras exhaustion requirement when prisoner completed highest level of appeal available holding that a prisoner exhausted his administrative remedies even though his grievance was untimely