a prison grievance are duly authorized. Mr. Tauer’s laches argument is based on “an appearance that [he] had failed to comply with the [prison] administrative grievance regulations.” Aplt. Br. at 6-7. We reject this claim because Mr. Tauer concedes that his 2004 grievance was filed outside the time limits imposed by the applicable regulation. Furthermore, the district court’s orders do not apply the doctrine of laches. Finally, Mr. Tauer asserts that he exhausted fully his administrative remedies relative to the 2004 grievance by appealing the ruling that it was time-barred as far as the procedures allowed. Advancing the position taken by the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, he maintains that even a time-barred grievance satisfies the PLRA. See Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 647, 163
holding prisoners timebarred grievance satisfied plras exhaustion requirement when prisoner completed highest level of appeal available holding that the plras exhaustion requirement applies to the grievance procedures set forth in an inmate handbook holding that presentation of an untimely petition to the states highest court satisfied the exhaustion requirement holding that plras exhaustion requirement is an affirmative defense that can be waived or forfeited by defendants holding that the plras exhaustion requirement contains a procedural default component