pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In that motion, Spada argued that Dr. Martinez failed to establish that his claims were unexhausted and procedurally defaulted because he had alleged that SCI-Graterford staff withheld grievance forms. The Magistrate Judge found no basis to alter the judgment and denied Spada’s motion. Spada timely appealed. II. Dr. Martinez argues that Spada was required to properly “exhaust” his administrative remedies despite SCI-Graterford officials withholding grievance forms during the 15-day filing period. However, we correctly concluded that Spada’s claims were procedurally defaulted because he initiated his civil action prior to completion of the grievance process, see Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201, 209 & n. 9 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), and because his grievance failed to name Dr.
holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court holding that the plra mandates that prisoners exhaust internal prison grievance procedures before filing suit emphasis added holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court holding that under the plra an inmate must exhaust available remedies prior to filing suit holding an inmate must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit and if exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing dismissal is mandatory