Philip Berryman v. Randall Haas, et al.
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Is the Sixth Circuit required to adhere to precedent under stare decisis when ruling on the same issue that has been ruled upon by the Sixth Circuit, several other sister circuits, and the United States Supreme Court and not overturned?
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ; In this case, the SIxth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that an essentiak part of the MDOC's Grievance Process will only benefit a very few litigants when it comes to Resolving a Grievance issue at STEP | of the grievance process and that when prison employees decide to reneg on their promise in the resolution of the Step | grievance, the Sixth Circuit claims that the prisoner litigant must file [ylet another grievance on the same issue. Pursuant to the mandate rule, lower courts must adhere to the commands of a Superior Court. In Berryman's case both the MDOC and the Reviewer had sufficient information to identiy the problem/issue because they RESOLVED the grievnce in Berryman’s favor and gave him all the relief he sought in the 2015 grievance. Also Berryman had basis for appealing the grievance of Defendants renegging on the 2015 Grievance as a prisoner CANNOT relitigate an issue by filing a duplicate grievance for fear of getting a misconduct ticket. HSSUE | IS THE SIXTH CIRCUIT REQUIRED TO ADHERETO PRECEDENT UNDER STARE DECISIS, WHEN RULING ON A SAME ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN RULED UPON BY THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, AND SEVERAL OTHER SISTER CIRCUITS AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND NOT OVER TURNED? 4. ISSUE II WHEN THERE EXISTS A CONFLICT WITHIN THE CIRCUITS OR , THE CIRCUIT ITSELF. IS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THOS CONFLICTS? 5 ISSUE Ill / WHEN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT PETITIONER BERRYMAN HAD TO FILE YET ANOTHER GRIEVANCE REGARDING THE VERY SAME ISSUE HE HAD ALREADY FILED AND WON IN 2015 AT STEP | (RESOLVED) OF THE MDOC'S GRIEVANCE POLICY. DID THEY VIOLATE STARE DECISIS AND PLAINTIFF BERRYMAN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS OTHER LITIGANTS, REGARDING HIS EXHAUSTION OF THE ISSUE OF THE SINGLE-PERSON CELL 6