Whether lower courts deprive inmate plaintiffs of their right to jury trial by granting summary judgment for prison officials when prison officials mislead inmates about administrative exhaustion of constitutional claims

UNIFORMITY AMONG THE CIRCUITS I. Definitive Guidance Is Needed on Whether The Ninth Circuit ’s Decision Conflicts with Other Circuit Court Reasoning that Exhaustion Becomes Unavailable When Prison Officials Mislead Inmates about The Administrative Appeal Process. It Also Conflicts With Decisions Within Its Own Circuit.-6 A. The Ninth Circuit ’s Decision Conflicts with Other Circuit Court ’s Reasoning And Remedy Regarding When Prison Officials Mislead Inmates During The Grievance Process. B. The Ninth Circuit ’s Decision Conflicts with a Panel From its own Court.86 THE ISSUE IS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE II. There Exists a Great Public Interest in Ensuring Constitutional Protections For All Citizens, Including Inmates ’ Right to Petition a Court for Redress of Constitutional Violations and Right To Jury Trial. -A. Is The Right To Petition For Redress Eroded When Prison Officials ’ Mislead Inmates By Telling The Inmate They Will Receive A Separate Response To Their Constitutional Claims, Implying The Inmate Need Not Pursue Additional Administrative Appeals, Then Fail To Provide A Separate Response And Argue In Court That The Separate Issues Are Not exhausted, Attempting To Depriving the Right To Redress Constitutional Violations in Court and Jury Trial? If so,-B. Do Lower Courts ’ Deprive Inmate Plaintiffs ’ of Their Right To Jury Trial By Granting Summary Judgement For Defendant Prison Officials On The Ground That The Inmate Failed To Administratively Exhaust Their Constitutional Claims When Undisputed Evidence Shows That, During The Administrative Appeal Hearing Process, High Ranking Prison Appeals Officials Specifically mislead The Inmate Such As By Telling The Inmate They would Receive A Separate Response Regarding Constitutional Claims-Implying The Inmate Need Not Submit A Separate Appeal?8 9 10