THE PROPER EXHAUSTION RULE

What is considered proper exhaustion and was there enough confusion in the policy handbook and other procedures to warrant non-exhaustion?

As it pertains to exhaustion of claims when there is multiple ways in filing a grievance should the claim be dismissed because plaintiff followed one procedure that was outlined in the handbook and not the other when it is not clear which one will be accepted?

Should the prisoner's case be dismissed for non-exhaustion where it was unclear what they had to do to exhaust, either because the rules were not clear or because the actions or the instructions of the officials created confusion in this particular case?

The court stated that Plaintiff conceded on Appeal that he did not follow the Handbook procedures for filing civil right grievance or medical services grievance [The plaintiff made no such statements in his arguments], What he stated was that he did not follow the normal procedures as it pertained to one part of the Jefferson County Handbook, should the court be allowed to misconstrue plaintiffs reasoning to fit their reasoning?

By allowing the County to have several options in determining how to file a grievance does this open the door to dismissal of a claim because a plaintiff has no ideal which one will be recognized as proper? And the defendants can refer to another option when it feels the need to dismiss the claim based on not exhausting in the proper manner?

What is considered proper exhaustion and was there enough confusion in the policy handbook and other procedures to warrant non-exhaustion?