move to dismiss this action because Indelicato failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a complaint in this Court. The PLRA provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under ... Federal law, by a prisoner ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). In Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002), the Supreme Court held that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits related to prison conditions. This requirement extends to cases, such as this one, where a plaintiff seeks a remedy not available through the administrative process, such as monetary damages. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 733-34, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The purpose of the exhaustion requirement is
holding that exhaustion is required even where the relief sought is not available in the administrative process holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea holding that exhaustion is not required for plaintiffs seeking money damages because damages are unavailable through the administrative process and because all other relief available to the plaintiffs under the idea had already been provided through a settlement agreement 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 that action for lien seeks money damages because its goal is to seize or attach money in the hands of the government as compensation  