The administrative grievance process for Oklahoma prisoners is well documented. It requires an "informal consultation with staff, then three written steps: a Request to Staff form, a formal grievance, and an appeal to the administrative review authority [ARA]." Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1117 (10th Cir. 2010). Appeals to the ARA, which includes the chief medical officer (CMO), complete the administrative grievance process.

The R&R noted the requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") that a prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies before filing an action in federal court challenging prison conditions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1117 (10th Cir. 2010). A.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is, of course, a precondition to suit under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and "unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court." Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1117 (10th Cir. 2010). Alternatively, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for certain defendants pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, see Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155, 1159 (10th Cir. 2006), and dismissal for other defendants because they had not personally participated in the challenged actions, an essential element in a § 1983 claim, see Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996).

          Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory under the PLRA and " unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court." Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1117 (10th Cir. 2010). " Because the prison's procedural requirements define the steps necessary for exhaustion, an inmate may only exhaust by properly following all of the steps laid out in the prison system's grievance procedure."

” Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1117 (10th Cir. 2010) (brackets, internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Exhaustion is required “[e]ven where the ‘available' remedies would appear to be futile at providing the kind of remedy sought.”

This also means that a grievant is not excused from compliance with the process based on his disagreement with prison officials as to the appropriateness of a particular procedure or belief that he should not have to correct a procedural deficiency. See Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1119 (10th Cir. 2010). The BOP provides a four-tiered Administrative Remedy Program for inmate grievances - one informal and three formal.

"[T]o properly exhaust administrative remedies [under the PLRA] prisoners must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, rules that are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself." Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1118 (10th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); Fields v. Okla. State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109, 1112 (10th Cir. 2007) ("To exhaust administrative remedies an inmate must properly comply with grievance procedures; substantial compliance is insufficient."). Exhaustion is required even when the procedures seem futile.

However, these benefits can only be realized "if the prison grievance system is given a fair opportunity to consider the grievance." Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1118 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006)). For that reason, inmates must complete the entire review process in accord with the rules that are defined by the prison grievance process itself.

Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1117 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Because the prison's procedural requirements define the steps necessary for exhaustion, an inmate may only exhaust by properly following all of the steps laid out in the prison system's grievance procedure."

In considering this argument, we conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1117 (10th Cir. 2010). Courts have recognized vicarious exhaustion in class actions, concluding that class members can vicariously exhaust remedies through a class representative. E.g., Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004).