created doctrine of issue exhaustion. See, e.g., Wash. Toxics, 413 F.3d at 1033 (finding no “suggestion] of any legislative intent to require exhaustion of the FIFRA remedy before seeking relief under the ESA”); Coal. for Sustainable Res., 48 F.Supp.2d at 1312 & n. 6 (plaintiff suing under ESA citizen suit provision was not required to go through “administrative adjudication process”); Ky. Heartwood, 20 F.Supp.2d at 1091 (stating that “exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a mandatory precondition to filing suit for a violation of the ESA” (emphasis added)); Silver, 924 F.Supp. at 987 (60-day notice in ESA citizen suit provision excuses plaintiffs from having to exhaust administrative remedies prescribed in agency’s regulations); see also Sims, 530 U.S. at 112, 120 S.Ct. 2080 (<HOLDING>). To the extent that AFRC is arguing that it 
 Holding statements: (A) holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile (B) holding that excessive force claims are not subject to exhaustion requirement (C) recognizing that issue exhaustion is a mandatory although not jurisdictional requirement (D) recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different (E) holding that issue exhaustion is mandatory even if not a statutory jurisdictional requirement
(D)