With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court directed that Smith be provided with, complete, and return "United States Marshal Form 285,” which relates to service of process. See Thompson v. Maldonado, 309 F.3d 107, 109 n. 2 (2d Cir.2002) (stating that the "Clerk of the District Court ... ordinarily provides this form to indigent plaintiffs upon the filing of a complaint. If properly filled out and returned, the form instructs the [Marshals Service] to serve process on the defendant.”); see also Welch v. Folsom, 925 F.2d 666, 670 (3d Cir.1991) (recognizing that plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis are entitled to rely upon service by the U.S. Marshals). Smith did not file the requested documents. 2 . These requirements also appear in the NSP Inmate Handbook. See Concepcion v. Morton, 306 F.3d 1347, 1355-55 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Although courts may resolve factual

A: holding that exhaustion requirement applies to excessive force claims
B: holding that the plras exhaustion requirement contains a procedural default component
C: holding that the plras exhaustion requirement applies to the grievance procedures set forth in an inmate handbook
D: holding that plras exhaustion requirement is an affirmative defense that can be waived or forfeited by defendants
C.