THIS COMMENT EXAMINES THE MARYLAND INMATE GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AND PERTINENT CASE LAW, FOCUSING ON WHETHER STATE PRISONERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO EXHAUST ADEQUATE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE BRINGING CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS (PARTICULARLY THOSE INVOLVING SECTION 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871) IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, (THE FEDERAL DOCTRINE OF NON-EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES IN SECTION 1983 CASES ALLOWS STATE PRISONERS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE FEDERAL COURTS.) THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT STRONG CONSIDERATIONS OF COMITY AND EFFICIENCY SUGGEST THAT THE RULE SHOULD BE CHANGED TO REQUIRE EXHAUSTION WHERE STATES PROVIDE ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. A PROPOSED TEST FOR 'ADEQUACY' IS FORMULATED BASED ON FIVE FACTORS - PROMPTNESS, LACK OF BIAS, PROCEDURES CONDUCIVE TO FAIRNESS, CREATION OF A PERMANENT RECORD, ABILITY TO GRANT EFFECTIVE RELIEF - AND THE MARYLAND INMATE GRIEVANCE COMMISSION IS ANALYZED UNDER IT. THIS EVALUATION REVEALED THAT THE COMMISSION MAY NEED IMPROVEMENT IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: FURTHER RESTRICTION OF THE POWER THE SECRETARY OVER THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THE SUGGESTION OF INSTITUTIONAL BIAS AGAINST THE INMATE; AMENDMENT OF THE ENACTING LEGISLATION TO GIVE THE COMMISSION EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE INTERIM ORDERS AND TO GRANT CLASS RELIEF; AND EXTENSTION OF THE COMMISSION' POWER TO AWARD COMPENSATION FOR TORTS COMMITTED BY PRISON OFFICIALS AGAINST INMATES.