the past that the PLRA prohibits inmates from suing to recover mental anguish damages absent physical injury, although nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages are available upon appropriate proof. See Meade v. Plummer, 344 F.Supp.2d 569, 572-74 (E.D.Mich.2004). That limitation, however, does not apply to individuals who bring actions against their former custodians after release from custody, as in this case. The defendants’ proposed amendment also fails because it comes too late. The Sixth Circuit has not addressed in a published opinion whether the exhaustion requirement is an affirmative defense that can be waived. In fact, the court expressly declined to do so in Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 501 (6th Cir.2001) (stating “Plaintiffs point out that most courts to consider t 99) (<HOLDING>); Perez v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
holding exhaustion requirements are waivable if not asserted recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different holding that the ideas exhaustion requirement applies to claims asserted under  1983 holding that exhaustion of issues is waived if not raised by the government holding that removal proceedings are in the nature of process and defects in the removal procedures are waivable