(PC) Tunstall, Jr. v. Virga, 2:14-cv-02220

Plaintiff Tunstall, a hearing-impaired state prisoner, alleges he required written communication at a May 4, 2012 disciplinary (RVR) hearing and did not receive it, resulting in a guilty finding and loss of 90 days credit.
Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on May 17, 2012; the grievance focused on Miranda/due-process issues and was bypassed at first level, denied at second level, and denied at third level.
The third-level decision for the first time referenced an "effective communication" issue and noted the Disability and Effective Communication (DEC) file directing staff to "speak loudly and clearly," concluding effective communication was established.
Plaintiff attached a Disability Placement Program verification/check form to his grievance and argues this put staff on notice that he needed written communication.
Defendants moved to dismiss on three grounds: failure to exhaust administrative remedies (PLRA), that plaintiff is a three-strikes litigant under §1915(g), and that plaintiff is a member of the Armstrong class; the magistrate judge focused on exhaustion and recommended dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA	Tunstall contends his grievance plus the attached DEC verification put staff on notice of his need for written communication and thus exhausted administrative remedies.	Defendants argue the grievance did not specifically raise lack of written communication at the RVR hearing, so plaintiff failed to ‘‘properly’’ exhaust the claim.	Court: Grant dismissal for failure to exhaust—grievance did not describe the specific issue (lack of written communication), and plaintiff did not show remedies were unavailable.
Ability to proceed in forma pauperis under §1915(g) (three-strikes)	Tunstall did not directly contest in this opinion summary.	Defendants asserted plaintiff has three strikes and cannot proceed IFP.	Court: Did not reach merits because dismissal for failure to exhaust was dispositive.
Membership in Armstrong v. Brown class	Tunstall did not press this as a defense to exhaustion.	Defendants argued plaintiff is an Armstrong class member (raising potential preclusion).	Court: Did not resolve because exhaustion ground disposes of the case.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (sets plausibility standard for complaints)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (exhaustion is mandatory)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (prisoner must follow prison grievance rules to exhaust)
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (defendant’s low burden to show non-exhaustion; burden shifts to prisoner to show unavailability)
Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024 (California grievance rules define proper exhaustion)
Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181 (must proceed to highest available level)
Bennett v. King, 293 F.3d 1096 (same)
Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (procedural rejection can render remedies effectively unavailable)
Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217 (administrative errors can excuse exhaustion)
Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926 (no requirement to go to third level when second-level relief ends process)
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (failure to exhaust under summary-judgment standard results in dismissal without prejudice)