There appears to be a division as to whether shy bladder syndrome constitutes a disability under the ADA amendments. See Carey v. Arizona Dep't of Corr., No. CV09-8020PCT-DGC DKD, 2010 WL 148211, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 12, 2010) (without analyzing the issue of disability under the ADA, finding that “liberally construed, ” the plaintiff, who alleged a disability of paruresis, had “stated a claim under the ADA” in his amended complaint); Peterson v. Wrenn, No. 14-CV-432-LM, 2017 WL 401189, at *5 (D.N.H. Jan. 30, 2017) (refusing to apply caselaw decided pre-ADAAA law to determine whether shy bladder syndrome is a disability under the ADA); see also Crowell v. Beeler, No. 114CV01724AWIBAM, 2017 WL 1198579, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) (calling into question whether shy bladder syndrome constitutes a disability under the ADA amendments).
"The failure to exhaust available grievance remedies is an affirmative defense as to which the defendants bear the burden of proof." Czekalski v. Hanks, No. 18-cv-592-PB, 2020 WL 7231358, at *12, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231179, at *35 (D.N.H. Dec. 8, 2020); see also Peterson v. Wrenn, No. 14-cv-432-LM, 2017 WL 401189, at *10, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12225, at *31 (D.N.H. Jan. 30, 2017). To prevail at the summary judgment stage, the defendants "must show that no reasonable [factfinder] could find that [the plaintiff] properly exhausted the administrative remedies available to him before commencing [the] action."
To show that this right has been violated, the detainee must identify a policy or practice that denied him meaningful access to the courts and show that the policy or practice actually injured his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Holloman, 244 F. Supp. 3d at 230; Peterson v. Wrenn, No. 14-CV-432-LM, 2017 WL 401189, at *7 (D.N.H. Jan. 30, 2017) (citing Casey, 518 U.S. at 352, 354-55). Importantly, "[t]he Constitution requires only that prisoners 'be able to present their grievances to the courts,' not that they be able to conduct generalized research.