Accordingly, the Court cannot hold as a matter of law that Trainor has failed to exhaust Grievance No. 8019790 because of a procedural deficiency. See Watkins v. Merriel, 2015 WL 5722819, at *8-10 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2015) (finding that there were genuine issues of disputed facts regarding whether an inmate filed IRF appeals when there was “at least some record evidence suggesting that Plaintiff did not receive responses from prison officials related to some IRFs he submitted”); Ortiz v. Hayman, 2008 WL 1319203, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2008) (holding that summary judgment is inappropriate when there was a dispute of fact whether plaintiff actually submitted an IRF when the plaintiff claims he sent an IRF and the defendants claim they never received an IRF); Ball v. Bower, 2012 WL 1414827, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 1414771 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2012) (collecting cases). Defendants additionally contend that, “although appealed to final review, [Trainor] also failed to identify Corrections Defendant Hartzell.

; Watkins v. Merriel, 2015 WL 5722819, at *8-10 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2015) (finding that there were genuine issues of disputed facts regarding whether an inmate filed IRF appeals when there was “at least some record evidence suggesting that Plaintiff did not receive responses from prison officials related to some IRFs he submitted”); Ortiz v. Hayman, 2008 WL 1319203, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2008) (holding that summary judgment is inappropriate when there was a dispute of fact whether plaintiff actually submitted an IRF when the plaintiff claims he sent an IRF and the defendants claim they never received an IRF); Ball v. Bower, 2012 WL 1414827, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 1414771 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2012) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the Court will deny Dr. Montag's motion for summary judgment to the extent it is based on Angle's alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and proceed to address the motion as it relates to the merits of Angle's claim.

Courts in this District have split on whether to find a genuine issue of material fact when a plaintiff contends that they exhausted their remedies, but the defendant claims that there is no record of such exhaustion. See Watkins v. Merriel, 2015 WL 5722819, at *8-10 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2015) (finding that there were genuine issues of disputed facts regarding whether an inmate filed IRF appeals when there was "at least some record evidence suggesting that Plaintiff did not receive responses from prison officials related to some IRFs he submitted"); Paladino v. Newsome, 2013 WL 3270987, at *8 (D.N.J. June 27, 2013) (holding that "Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies"); Ortiz v. Hayman, 2008 WL 1319203, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2008) (holding that summary judgment is inappropriate when there was a dispute of fact whether plaintiff actually submitted an IRF when the plaintiff claims he sent an IRF and the defendants claim they never received an IRF); but see Miller v. Ricci, 2013 WL 1987255, at *2-3 (D.N.J. May 13, 2013) (granting summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies when there was no evidence to support plaintiff's claim that he appealed his grievances). Here, Defendant offers a written declaration signed by the Executive Assistant of East Jersey State Prison and a written declaration signed by the Inmate Remedy Coordinator at Northern State Prison, each stating that Plaintiff filed no Inmate Remedy Forms related to his Bell's palsy while incarcerated at each respective prison.

F.2d 1070, 1080 (3d Cir.1992)); see also Jiminez v. All Am. Rathskeller, Inc., 503 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that affidavit may not contradict prior testimony without plausible explanation). Courts in this District have found issues of fact regarding the availability of administrative remedies based solely on the prisoner's contention (albeit supported by affidavit or declaration) he filed an IRF or an appeal but the prison failed to respond. See Paladino v. Newsome, No. CIV. 12-2021, 2013 WL 3270987, at *8 (D.N.J. June 27, 2013) (holding that defendants did not meet their burden of establishing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his Eighth Amendment claim challenging the conditions of his confinement and his Fourteenth Amendment claim alleging disparate treatment) (citing Jackson v. Gandy, 877 F.Supp.2d 159, 179 (D.N.J. June 29, 2012), on reconsideration in part on unrelated grounds, No. CIV. 12-2021, 2013 WL 5161144 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2013); Ortiz v. Hayman, CIV. 06-4730, 2008 WL 1319203, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2008) (denying summary judgment where there was a dispute of fact regarding whether Plaintiff actually filed an initial IRF); but see Miller v. Ricci, No. CIV. 11-0859, 2013 WL 1987255, at *2-3 (May 13, 2013) (granting summary judgment for failure to exhaust where Plaintiff claimed he appealed the staff response to his grievances but there was no other record evidence to support his contention and the production of 35 forms by Defendants "militate[d] against a finding that the NJDOC misplaced or destroyed his purported appeal"), aff'd, (3rd Circ. 13-2808) (Nov 01, 2013). Unlike the facts in Miller v. Ricci, 2013 WL 1987255, at *2-3, there is at least some record evidence suggesting that Plaintiff did not receive responses from prison officials related to some IRFs he submitted.