28 C.F.R. § 115.52

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

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

(a) An agency shall be exempt from this standard if it does not have administrative procedures to address inmate grievances regarding sexual abuse.

(b)(1) The agency shall not impose a time limit on when an inmate may submit a grievance regarding an allegation of sexual abuse.

(2) The agency may apply otherwise-applicable time limits to any portion of a grievance that does not allege an incident of sexual abuse.

(3) The agency shall not require an inmate to use any informal grievance process, or to otherwise attempt to resolve with staff, an alleged incident of sexual abuse.

(4) Nothing in this section shall restrict the agency's ability to defend against an inmate lawsuit on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations has expired.

(1) An inmate who alleges sexual abuse may submit a grievance without submitting it to a staff member who is the subject of the complaint, and

(2) Such grievance is not referred to a staff member who is the subject of the complaint.

(d)(1) The agency shall issue a final agency decision on the merits of any portion of a grievance alleging sexual abuse within 90 days of the initial filing of the grievance.

(2) Computation of the 90-day time period shall not include time consumed by inmates in preparing any administrative appeal.

(3) The agency may claim an extension of time to respond, of up to 70 days, if the normal time period for response is insufficient to make an appropriate decision. The agency shall notify the inmate in writing of any such extension and provide a date by which a decision will be made.

(4) At any level of the administrative process, including the final level, if the inmate does not receive a response within the time allotted for reply, including any properly noticed extension, the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level.

(e)(1) Third parties, including fellow inmates, staff members, family members, attorneys, and outside advocates, shall be permitted to assist inmates in filing requests for administrative remedies relating to allegations of sexual abuse, and shall also be permitted to file such requests on behalf of inmates.

(2) If a third party files such a request on behalf of an inmate, the facility may require as a condition of processing the request that the alleged victim agree to have the request filed on his or her behalf, and may also require the alleged victim to personally pursue any subsequent steps in the administrative remedy process.

(3) If the inmate declines to have the request processed on his or her behalf, the agency shall document the inmate's decision.

(f)(1) The agency shall establish procedures for the filing of an emergency grievance alleging that an inmate is subject to a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse.

(2) After receiving an emergency grievance alleging an inmate is subject to a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse, the agency shall immediately forward the grievance (or any portion thereof that alleges the substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse) to a level of review at which immediate corrective action may be taken, shall provide an initial response within 48 hours, and shall issue a final agency decision within 5 calendar days. The initial response and final agency decision shall document the agency's determination whether the inmate is in substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse and the action taken in response to the emergency grievance.

(g) The agency may discipline an inmate for filing a grievance related to alleged sexual abuse only where the agency demonstrates that the inmate filed the grievance in bad faith.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: John Does 8-10 v. Rick Snyder, 945 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

John Does 8-10 v. Rick Snyder, 945 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 115.52 (b)(1); National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, 77 Fed.”

Howard Smallwood v. Don Williams, 59 F.4th 306 (7th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 115.52 (b)(3) (“The agency shall not require an inmate to use any informal grievance process, or to otherwise attempt to resolve with staff, an alleged incident of sexual abuse.”

John Kalu v. Spaulding, 113 F.4th 311 (3rd Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 115.52 . Here, Kalu filed several Requests but was unsuccessful in obtaining relief.”

Earl Johnson, Jr. v. Richard Robinette, 105 F.4th 99 (4th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “For example, the “administrative remedies” standard dictates that a prison “shall not impose a time limit on when an inmate may submit a grievance regarding an allegation of sexual abuse,” 28 C.F.R. § 115.52 (b)(1), or “require an inmate to use any informal grievance process, or…”

Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. 460 (2025). “Reply Brief 14 (citing 28 CFR §115.52 (b)(1) (2024)). Accordingly, Perttu says, the PREA policy applicable in the State of Michigan when Richards filed suit did not bar him from filing new grievances.”

Thompson v. Coulter, 680 F. App'x 707 (10th Cir. 2017). “” 28 C.F.R. § 115.52 (b)(1). But Utah has not adopted the PREA, so Mr.”

Diamond v. Owens, 131 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (M.D. Ga. 2015). “See 28 CFR § 115.52 (b)(1). GDOC's grievance procedure incorporates PREA’s guidelines that inmates do not have a time limit to submit a grievance regarding sexual assault.”

Mobley v. Garrett (E.D. Ark. 2025). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 115.52 modifies the standard exhaustion requirements under the PLRA.”

Troy Stephens v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “Specifically, plaintiffs argue that 28 CFR 115.52(b)(1), which states that agencies like the MDOC “shall not impose a time limit on when an inmate may submit a grievance regarding an allegation of sexual abuse,” conflicts with the notice provisions of MCL 600.”

Howard Smallwood v. Don Williams (7th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 115.52 (b)(3) (“The agency shall not require an inmate to use any informal grievance process, or to otherwise attempt to resolve with staff, an alleged incident of sexual abuse.”

Moore v. Hickey (D. Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “at 2, citing 28 C.F.R. § 115.52 (b)(1)). Plaintiff concludes that if there is no time 22 2 The PREA itself does not confer a private right of action.”

Harris v. Henderson (S.D. Ill. 2021). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 115.52 . Plaintiff is still required to follow the process at 28 C.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— 28 C.F.R. § 115.52(b) — 1 case

Nelson v. Disorbo (N.D.N.Y. 2020).

— 28 C.F.R. § 115.52(b)(1) — 3 cases

Riley v. Spangler (D.N.M. 2022).

Troy Stephens v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Specifically, plaintiffs argue that 28 CFR 115.52(b)(1), which states that agencies like the MDOC “shall not impose a time limit on when an inmate may submit a grievance regarding an allegation of sexual abuse,” conflicts with the notice provisions of MCL 600.”

Morris (S.D. Ill. 2026).

— 28 C.F.R. § 115.52(b)(4) — 1 case

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.