by furnishing properly fitted orthopedic footware. As DOCS regulations do not provide a mechanism to appeal such implementation failures, the only remedy reasonably available was the filing of another grievance alerting the IGRC and Superintendent to the need for compliance. Abney did just that. And, each time Abney received favorable rulings from the IGRC and the Superintendent. Despite his dogged pursuit of repeated grievances over two years, Abney was mired in a Catch-22. The defendants’ failure to implement the multiple rulings in Abney’s favor rendered administrative relief “unavailable” under the PLRA. See Dixon v. Page, 291 F.3d 485, 490 (7th Cir.2002); Marvin, 255 F.3d at 43 n. 3; Kaplan, 2000 WL 959728, at *3; see also Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th
holding remedies not available to prisoner where officials failed to respond to his grievance during time period required by regulations holding that a prisoner exhausted his administrative remedies even though his grievance was untimely holding remedy not available to prisoner where officials purportedly prevented plaintiff from employing the prisons administrative remedies recognizing that officials failure timely to respond to grievance could be basis for prisoner to show he exhausted available administrative remedies 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