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 I of the grievance process and that when prison employees decide to
reneg on their promise in the resolution of the Step I grievance, the Sixth Circuit claims that the
prisoner litigant must file [y]et 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.

ISSUE I
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?

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?

ISSUE III
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 I
(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

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?