his account of the cell extraction, there still remains the question whether Mr. Pavey reasonably believed that he had done all that was necessary to comply with Procedure 00-02-301. We have held that inmates may rely on the assurances of prison officials when they are led to believe that satisfactory steps have been taken to exhaust administrative remedies. See Curtis, 436 F.3d 709, 711. In Curtis the defendant jail guards argued that the plaintiff inmate had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he hand-delivered a grievance to a jail employee instead of placing it in a lockbox designated for that purpose. In overturning the grant of summary judgment for the defendants, we observed that the defendants CF officers did not generate what they meant to be a grievance 3) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th
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 holding that threats to an inmates safety after his use of the prison grievance system supported a retaliation claim holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief holding that district court erred in dismissing inmates complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when court did not address inmates allegation that prison officials failed to provide necessary grievance forms holding that even in absence of copy of written decision inmates affidavit and notations on grievance form provided trial court with information necessary to determine whether inmates suit was filed within statutory time period