In the case of Ross v. Blake, the Supreme Court ruled that an inmate must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), even if those remedies are not clearly defined or may seem ineffective. The case involved Shaidon Blake, an inmate who was assaulted by two guards and filed a complaint against one but did not file against the other due to confusion over prison grievance procedures. When he later attempted to sue both guards in federal court, his suit was dismissed because he had failed to fully utilize internal prison grievance processes first as required by PLRA. The Fourth Circuit Court reversed this decision arguing there were "special circumstances" which excused him from exhausting all possible administrative remedies before suing in court. However, upon reaching Supreme Court it reinstated original dismissal stating that no such special exceptions exist within PLRA's text and hence its requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory irrespective of any perceived inadequacies.

In the dissenting opinion for Ross v. Blake, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's decision to create an unwritten "special circumstances" exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) mandatory exhaustion requirement was not supported by statutory text or precedent. He contended that this new rule contradicted Congress' intent when it enacted PLRA and undermined its purpose of reducing frivolous prisoner lawsuits. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to provide clear guidance on what constitutes a "special circumstance," which could lead to inconsistent application and further litigation. In his view, if there were any exceptions at all they should be explicitly stated in statute rather than inferred from ambiguous language or judicially created out of whole cloth.