are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The defendants concede that Ricks and Marrie have exhausted their administrative remedies for their sexual assault claims. Def.Br. at 9. It is not clear from the parties’ submissions whether Ricks attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his retaliation claim. Various district and appellate courts hold that if a prison’s grievance system does not provide for the administrative award of monetary relief, the grievance system is not “available” to a prisoner. See, e.g., Hollimon v. DeTella, 6 F.Supp.2d 968, 970 (N.D.Ill.1998); Lacey v. C.S.P. Solano Med. Staff, 990 F.Supp. 1199, 1202 (E.D.Cal.1997); Polite v. Barbarin, 1998 WL 146687, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.25, 1998); see also Lunsford v. Jumao-As, 155 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263, 1266-67
holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea holding that an alien must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief from detention holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim