With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". hausted his administrative remedies and attach the appropriate documentation, including administrative decisions, demonstrating exhaustion.”); see also Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 489-90 (6th Cir.2002) (reaffirming the rule of Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102 (6th Cir.1998), requiring a prisoner to plead exhaustion with particularity and attach to the complaint dispositions of available administrative remedies to demonstrate it). Most circuits that have considered the issue, however, including this circuit, have held that nonexhaustion is an affirmative defense, and that therefore defendants bear the burden of proof and prisoner plaintiffs need not plead exhaustion with particularity. E.g., Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d at 28-29; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117-18 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Casanova v. Dubois, 304 F.3d 75, 78 n. 3 (1st

A: holding that laches is an affirmative defense
B: holding that defendants are estopped from raising nonexhaustion as an affirmative defense when prison officials inhibit an inmates ability to utilize grievance procedures
C: holding that fair use is an affirmative defense
D: holding nonexhaustion to be an affirmative defense
D.