In Miles v. Anton, the court (Easterbrook/Wood/Brennan, with Wood writing) reverses summary judgment against a prisoner for failure to exhaust the formal grievance process required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court found that, pursuant to the prison’s grievance rules, challenges to the loss of a job was not grievable regardless of the reason that the prisoner was complaining about the loss. The district court had ruled that the plaintiff’s complaint was grievable because he was not just complaining about the loss of a job but about unconstitutional treatment by staff that caused it. The court rejected that construction, finding that there was nothing in the policy itself that suggested the grievability of the prisoner’s job loss depended on why he lost it.. The court concludes by noting: “If textualism is for anyone, it must be for everyone, including those who are incarcerated.”