C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 115—PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT NATIONAL STANDARDS › Subpart A—Standards for Adult Prisons and Jails

28 C.F.R. § 115.41

Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) All inmates shall be assessed during an intake screening and upon transfer to another facility for their risk of being sexually abused by other inmates or sexually abusive toward other inmates.

(b) Intake screening shall ordinarily take place within 72 hours of arrival at the facility.

(c) Such assessments shall be conducted using an objective screening instrument.

(d) The intake screening shall consider, at a minimum, the following criteria to assess inmates for risk of sexual victimization:

(1) Whether the inmate has a mental, physical, or developmental disability;

(2) The age of the inmate;

(3) The physical build of the inmate;

(4) Whether the inmate has previously been incarcerated;

(5) Whether the inmate's criminal history is exclusively nonviolent;

(6) Whether the inmate has prior convictions for sex offenses against an adult or child;

(7) Whether the inmate is or is perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or gender nonconforming;

(8) Whether the inmate has previously experienced sexual victimization;

(9) The inmate's own perception of vulnerability; and

(10) Whether the inmate is detained solely for civil immigration purposes.

(e) The initial screening shall consider prior acts of sexual abuse, prior convictions for violent offenses, and history of prior institutional violence or sexual abuse, as known to the agency, in assessing inmates for risk of being sexually abusive.

(f) Within a set time period, not to exceed 30 days from the inmate's arrival at the facility, the facility will reassess the inmate's risk of victimization or abusiveness based upon any additional, relevant information received by the facility since the intake screening.

(g) An inmate's risk level shall be reassessed when warranted due to a referral, request, incident of sexual abuse, or receipt of additional information that bears on the inmate's risk of sexual victimization or abusiveness.

(h) Inmates may not be disciplined for refusing to answer, or for not disclosing complete information in response to, questions asked pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(7), (d)(8), or (d)(9) of this section.

(i) The agency shall implement appropriate controls on the dissemination within the facility of responses to questions asked pursuant to this standard in order to ensure that sensitive information is not exploited to the inmate's detriment by staff or other inmates.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2016–2026 · leading case: Richardson v. Dist. of Columbia, 322 F. Supp. 3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Richardson v. Dist. of Columbia, 322 F. Supp. 3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “See 28 C.F.R. 115.41(e).) A penological expert, however, has opined that because Glover was "a fully sexual functioning male career criminal, who was facing a lengthy stay in federal prison," it was "eminently foreseeable that at some time [he] might sexually assault Ms.”
Zollicoffer v. Livingston, 169 F. Supp. 3d 687 (S.D. Tex. 2016). “28 C.F.R. § 115.41 (Prison Rape Elimination Act National Standards) (requiring that inmates be screened for vulnerability and separated from likely aggressors, taking into account “whether the inmate is or is perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or…”
Unique v. Claybaugh (N.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 3× “According to Plaintiffs, 25 4 28 C.F.R. § 115.41 (d)(7) provides that intake screening for inmates upon transfer to another 26 facility, including for their risk of being sexually abused by other inmates, shall consider “[w]hether the inmate is or is perceived to be gay,…”
Danny Hensley v. Heather Bossio (6th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 115.41 (a). Officials conducting a screening consider, among other things, the inmate’s criminal history, whether the inmate “has prior convictions for sex offenses against an adult or child,” and “[w]hether the inmate is or is perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual,…”
Collier v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). · cites it 2× “15, §§ 3321, 1050 (2025); 28 C.F.R. § 115.41 ). Based on the alleged violations, Plaintiff seeks relief in the following forms: “Investigate my file, [$]10 million.”
Jane Doe v. Todd Blanche (D.C. Cir. 2026). · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 115.41 (a), (d)(7). The regulations further require BOP to use that information to “inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments with the goal of keeping separate those inmates at high risk of being sexually victimized from those at high risk of…”
Richardson v. Smith (D.D.C. 2018). “See 28 C.F.R. 115.41(e).) A penological expert, however, has opined that because Glover was “a fully sexual functioning male career criminal, who was facing a lengthy stay in federal prison,” it was “eminently foreseeable that at some time [he] might sexually assault Ms.”
Hensley v. Bossio (E.D. Ky. 2019). “28 C.F.R. § 115.41 . The screening is to be used by prison officials in determining housing, work and education assignments.”
Minor v. Dilks (D.N.J. 2020). “See 28 C.F.R. § 115.41 . Plaintiff discovered that SWSP was failing to comply with this regulation.”
Doe v. Chee (D.N.M. 2021). “45 at 5 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 115.41 ).) The PREA requires facilities to screen new inmates “for potential vulnerabilities or tendencies of acting out with sexually aggressive behavior.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 115.41(e) — 2 cases
Richardson v. Dist. of Columbia, 322 F. Supp. 3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “See 28 C.F.R. 115.41(e).) A penological expert, however, has opined that because Glover was "a fully sexual functioning male career criminal, who was facing a lengthy stay in federal prison," it was "eminently foreseeable that at some time [he] might sexually assault Ms.”
Richardson v. Smith (D.D.C. 2018). “See 28 C.F.R. 115.41(e).) A penological expert, however, has opined that because Glover was “a fully sexual functioning male career criminal, who was facing a lengthy stay in federal prison,” it was “eminently foreseeable that at some time [he] might sexually assault Ms.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.