interfered with his access to any aspect of the grievance program. Cf. O’Connor v. Featherston, No. 01 Civ. 3251(HB), 2002 WL 818085, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2002) (finding “substantial or reasonable” attempt to exhaust sufficient in light of defendants’ conduct); Gonzalez v. Officer in Charge of Barber Shop on Duty on May 13, 1999, No. 99 Civ. 3455(DLC), 2000 WL 274184, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2000) (ruling that assertions that inmate had been “frustrated” in his attempts to file grievances required denial of motion to dismiss); Lyon v. Vande Krol, 305 F.3d 806, 808 (8th Cir.2002) (“[W]e have held that inmates cannot be held to the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA when prison officials have prevented them from exhausting their administrative remedies.”); Brown, 312 F.3d at 112 (<HOLDING>). b. Conversion is Required as Nonex-haustion
holding a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is not available where the employee has an existing statutory remedy holding that a thwarted remedy is not available holding that the remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for postconviction relief under rule 3850 holding that varity corp did not eliminate a private cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty when another potential remedy is available instead the district courts remedy is limited to such equitable relief as is considered appropriate holding that a remedy that prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an available remedy under  1997e