Case Name: John P. PONDER, Appellant, v. WACKENHUT CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION; Scott Grimes Unit; Roosevelt Franklin, Jr., Captain, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility; Larry Clark, C/O, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility; Shane Rogers, C/O, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility; Manscow, C/O, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-16
Citations: 23 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 01-1876
Parties: John P. PONDER, Appellant, v. WACKENHUT CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION; Scott Grimes Unit; Roosevelt Franklin, Jr., Captain, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility; Larry Clark, C/O, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility; Shane Rogers, C/O, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility; Manscow, C/O, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 23
Pages: 631–632

Head Matter:
John P. PONDER, Appellant, v. WACKENHUT CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION; Scott Grimes Unit; Roosevelt Franklin, Jr., Captain, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility; Larry Clark, C/O, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility; Shane Rogers, C/O, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility; Manscow, C/O, Grimes Unit, Wackenhut Correctional Facility, Appellees.
No. 01-1876.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 4, 2002.
Filed Jan. 16, 2002.
Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas prisoner John Ponder appeals from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Ponder alleged he was assaulted by correctional officers, but was unable to meet the prison's fifteen-day deadline for filing an administrative grievance because the officers twice threatened him not to tell anyone about the assaults.
A remedy that prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not "available" under section 1997e(a). See Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir.2001). We cannot determine on the record before us, however, whether or not the prison grievance process was available to Ponder. See Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. The district court may wish to appoint counsel to assist Ponder.