offered no evidence to dispute the inmate’s testimony that hand-delivery was an encouraged alternative to use of the lockbox. As we explained, prison officials who “encourage, or even invite, noncompliance with written procedure” cannot then turn around and use the deviation as evidence of a failure to exhaust. Id. In reaching this conclusion, we joined other circuits which have held that prison officials will be bound by their oral representations to inmates concerning compliance with the grievance process. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 937 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that information prison officials provided to prisoner about grievance procedures was relevant in deciding whether available administrative remedies had been exhausted); Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 112 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Pavey’s situation is similar; even if the
holding that a prison officials failure to follow the prisons own policies procedures and regulations does not constitute a violation of due process if constitutional minima are nevertheless met holding that plaintiffs failure to exhaust available grievance procedures does not bar her title vii claims holding that prisoners noncompliance with written grievance procedures did not constitute a failure to exhaust since prison officials had told him that written procedures were not accurate holding that the plra mandates that prisoners exhaust internal prison grievance procedures before filing suit emphasis added holding that a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he did not utilize grievance procedures that permitted waiver of the time limit for good cause