[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 19-12048 ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00089-JRH-BKE

CHRISTOPHER VARNER,

Plaintiff–Appellant, versus STAN SHEPARD JERRY BEARD ANTONIO BINNS JUSTIN WASHINGTON LENON BUTLER RODGERICK NABORS JULIAN GREENAWAY,

Defendants–Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ________________________ (August 31, 2021) USCA11 Case: 19-12048 Date Filed: 08/31/2021 Page: 2 of 29

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. LAGOA, Circuit Judge:

Christopher Varner appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDC”) and Augusta State Medical Prison (“ASMP”) officials (collectively, “Defendants”). The district court found that Varner did not properly exhaust the available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. On appeal, Varner argues that there were no available administrative remedies, or, alternatively, that the remedies were exhausted. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. GDC Grievance Procedure

Relevant here is GDC’s 2012 grievance policy. Upon entering GDC, inmates receive a copy of this policy in their Orientation Handbook and an oral explanation of the policy. The policy allows inmates to assist each other in filling out grievances, and notes that “[i]nstitutional staff will assist offenders who need special help filling out the grievance forms (i.e., due to language barriers, illiteracy, or physical or mental disability) upon request.” GDC “encourages,” but does not require,

1 Varner also requested that if this Court did not reverse, his case be remanded for further discovery. Because additional discovery would not relate to facts relevant to our decision, we deny that request.

2 USCA11 Case: 19-12048 Date Filed: 08/31/2021 Page: 3 of 29

“offenders to try to resolve complaints on an informal basis before filing a grievance.” It is clear from the Handbook, however, that a formal grievance must be filed in order to initiate GDC’s administrative process.

The GDC policy generally consists of a two-step procedure for submitting a grievance. For the first step, the inmate must file a grievance form within ten days of when he knew or should have known of the incident.2 A grievance coordinator screens the form for procedural compliance, including timeliness. If the grievance coordinator finds that the grievance is procedurally flawed, and the warden agrees, the grievance is rejected. If the grievance coordinator finds that the grievance is procedurally compliant (or if the warden disagrees with the grievance coordinator’s recommendation to reject the grievance for procedural flaws), then the grievance is processed, investigated, and decided on the merits. For the second step, the inmate can file a central office appeal after receiving a response to his grievance (either a procedural rejection or a decision on the merits).

Grievances reporting physical force that does not comply with GDC’s use-of- force procedures—like all grievances—are subject to the ten-day filing deadline, as well as the good cause exception. These types of grievances, however, are not