discussion with staff or submitting an inmate request form.” AR 740.08(1). If the

inmate’s complaint is not resolved through the alternative means, the inmate initiates

2 a three-step process for escalating the grievance. See AR 740.08–740.10. The

inmate’s first step in this process (the second step overall) is to file an informal

grievance. AR 740.08. If the informal grievance is denied, the inmate may escalate

the complaint to a formal grievance, and if that is also denied, the inmate may

escalate the complaint to a second-level formal grievance. AR 740.08, 740.09.

Welch was clearly aware of how these procedures worked. From 2014 to 2021,

Welch filed 189 grievances through the processes outlined in AR 740. Welch won

five outright and prevailed in part on three.

Welch argues AR 740 is “so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking,

incapable of use.” Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643 (2016). But administrative

procedures “need not be sufficiently ‘plain’ as to preclude any reasonable mistake

or debate with respect to their meaning.” Id. at 644. The administrative remedies

“need not meet federal standards, nor must they be plain, speedy, and effective.”

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). Welch’s argument that AR 740 is so opaque that it is unusable is belied

by his own experiences, including achieving some success.

Welch also seeks to excuse his failure to exhaust by arguing that NDOC’s

grievance system was unavailable to him. This excuse is unavailable when the

inmate can “have no reasonable belief that administrative remedies were effectively

unavailable,” because the inmate was “specifically instructed” on how to appeal a

3 denial of a grievance, but the inmate “did not follow those instructions.” Sapp v.

Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 826 (9th Cir. 2010). Welch filed two grievances—one for

his retaliation claim and one for his failure-to-protect claim. The first was not

accepted because he improperly denoted it as “For Tracking Purposes Only.” Welch

was informed that his grievance was not accepted, and he was instructed he needed

to follow the procedure outlined in AR 740.08(1), which details the informal level

grievance procedure. Welch did not follow that procedure. Welch can have no

“reasonable good faith belief” that the administrative remedies were unavailable,

because he was instructed on how to correct his grievance. Id. at 827. Prior to the

filing of the operative complaint in this case, Welch did file an informal grievance

on August 29, 2019, re-raising his July 2019 retaliation claim, but that renewed claim

was rejected on the ground that it violated the limitation that, as a general matter, no

more than one grievance could be filed per week. Welch did not thereafter attempt

to resubmit that retaliation claim. Contrary to what Welch contends, the record is

clear that Welch had in fact violated the one-per-week limitation: the August 29

renewal of his earlier July retaliation claim was rejected because it was the second

grievance filed by him during that week in August.

As for his failure-to-protect grievance, Welch filed his grievance on July 9,

2019, and was relocated to a segregation unit to address his safety concerns on July

16. Welch did not escalate his failure-to-protect grievance after receiving this

4 remedy until February 2021, almost a year after he filed the operative amended

complaint on March 26, 2020. See Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 708 (9th Cir.

2022) (noting “[e]xhaustion requirements apply based on when a plaintiff files the

operative complaint” (citation omitted)). Therefore, because Welch’s failure-to-

protect grievance was addressed, and he did not escalate his grievance before filing

his amended complaint, he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies.

See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (holding

that where a prisoner is in the process of exhausting administrative remedies but has

not yet completed the exhaustion process, “dismissal is required under 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a)”).

AFFIRMED.

5