How has the Court dealt with the issue of failure to process Appeal 04034?

First, plaintiff argues that prison officials failed to process Appeal 04034 in a timely fashion. It is arguable that the first-level response fell outside the 30-day window provided for by California regulations. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 3084.8(c). The appeal was bifurcated within 30 days and the ultimate response was issued within 30 days of the bifurcation decision, but that response was not made within 30 days of the initial receipt of the appeal. But this arguable failure to comply with the regulatory time limits did not render the appeals process unavailable to plaintiff. The delay was minimal, the grievance was addressed, and plaintiff was able to continue seeking review. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 943 n.18 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that prison officials may not exploit the exhaustion requirement through infinite delay in responding to grievances). In short, plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of material fact that the delay rendered the administrative process unavailable to him. The record plainly shows that it did not. Thus, the delay does not excuse his failure to exhaust.