non-sequitur because it does nothing to rebut Williams’s evidence that administrative remedies were not available to her at the time she tried to file the relevant grievance and appeal in this case. Other circuits have similarly concluded that defendants may not simply rely on the existence of an administrative review process to overcome a prisoner’s showing that administrative remedies were not available to him. In Hemphill v. New York, for example, the Second Circuit held that merely showing that grievance mechanisms are in place does not end the inquiry into availability where the plaintiff claims that threats by prison officials made the remedy functionally .unavailable to him. 380 F.3d 680, 687-88 (2d Cir.2004); see also Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 268-69 (5th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, permitting a defendant to show that
holding that filing of a disciplinary charge becomes actionable if done in retaliation for the inmates filing of a grievance and stating that such conduct strikes at the heart of an inmates constitutional right to seek redress of grievances holding that records showing 53 other inmates had filed grievances during the period in question did not demonstrate that administrative remedy was available to plaintiff holding that even in absence of copy of written decision inmates affidavit and notations on grievance form provided trial court with information necessary to determine whether inmates suit was filed within statutory time period holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury holding that a thwarted remedy is not available