(a) The agency shall establish a policy to protect all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse or sexual harassment or cooperate with sexual abuse or sexual harassment investigations from retaliation by other inmates or staff, and shall designate which staff members or departments are charged with monitoring retaliation.
(b) The agency shall employ multiple protection measures, such as housing changes or transfers for inmate victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or inmate abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services for inmates or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or sexual harassment or for cooperating with investigations.
(c) For at least 90 days following a report of sexual abuse, the agency shall monitor the conduct and treatment of inmates or staff who reported the sexual abuse and of inmates who were reported to have suffered sexual abuse to see if there are changes that may suggest possible retaliation by inmates or staff, and shall act promptly to remedy any such retaliation. Items the agency should monitor include any inmate disciplinary reports, housing, or program changes, or negative performance reviews or reassignments of staff. The agency shall continue such monitoring beyond 90 days if the initial monitoring indicates a continuing need.
(d) In the case of inmates, such monitoring shall also include periodic status checks.
(e) If any other individual who cooperates with an investigation expresses a fear of retaliation, the agency shall take appropriate measures to protect that individual against retaliation.
(f) An agency's obligation to monitor shall terminate if the agency determines that the allegation is unfounded.
Notes of Decisions
Germaine Smart v. COII Ronald England, 93 F.4th 1283 (11th Cir. 2024).
“, 28 C.F.R. § 115.67 (a) (“The [prison or jail] shall establish a policy to protect all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse or sexual harassment or cooperate with sexual abuse or sexual harassment investigations from retaliation by other inmates or staff .”
DePaepe v. White (D. Haw. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 115.67 (b).6 Plaintiff’s claims against Morales are DISMISSED with leave granted to amend if Plaintiff has additional facts that support more than non-actionable verbal sexual harassment and show that prison officials ignored a likely threat to his safety.”
People of Michigan v. Christopher Milan Kroll (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“” 28 CFR 115.67(a). 10 The regulations also provide that an inmate “shall be subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to a formal disciplinary process following an administrative finding that the inmate engaged in inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse or following a criminal finding…”
Germaine Smart v. COII Ronald England (11th Cir. 2024).
“, 28 C.F.R. § 115.67 (a) (“The [prison or jail] shall establish a policy to protect all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse or sexual harassment or cooperate with sexual abuse or sexual harassment investigations from retaliation by other inmates or staff .”
Germaine Smart v. Ronald England (11th Cir. 2024).
“, 28 C.F.R. § 115.67 (a) (“The [prison or jail] shall establish a policy to protect all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse or sexual harassment or cooperate with sexual abuse or sexual harassment investigations from retaliation by other inmates or staff .”
Pinson v. Carvajal (D. Ariz. 2024).
“Require the BOP to enforce the antiretaliatory regulation of the Prison Rape 21 Elimination Act (“PREA”), 28 C.F.R. § 115.67 . (Id. at 6-7; Doc. 62 at 2.”
(PC) Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (E.D. Cal. 2023).
“In both cases, plaintiff’s request for relief3 seeks to require strict 22 enforcement of 28 C.F.R. § 115.67 , to enjoin the BOP from housing plaintiff for prolonged 23 periods of time in the SHU, and to offer plaintiff a housing alternative to a cisgender male prison.”
Peterson v. United States of Am. (N.D. Cal. 2020).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 115.67 (b). Second, 3 If the alleged perpetrator is a staff member, all options for safeguarding the inmate should be considered as described in the 4 above paragraph.”
Jones v. Terronez (S.D. Cal. 2020).
“238, 244-48 (1983), and the PREA regulation on which 17 Plaintiff relies, 28 C.F.R. Section 115.67(b), does not require Plaintiff be transferred either.”
DePaepe v. White (D. Haw. 2020).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 115.67 (b) (requiring prison officials to “employ multiple protection measures, such as .”
Mays v. Santos (S.D. Ill. 2020).
“Specifically, 28 C.F.R. § 115.67 (b) provides: (b) The agency shall employ multiple measures, such as housing changes or transfers for inmate victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or inmate abusers from contact with the victims, and emotional support services for inmates…”
WATTS v. United States (W.D. Pa. 2024).
“23, 2022) (“28 C.F.R. § 115.67 only specifically mandates that the BOP ‘establish a policy to protect all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse’ for signs of possible retaliation”; “when and how to perform status checks, what may suggest possible retaliation, and what…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 115.67(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Christopher Milan Kroll (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“” 28 CFR 115.67(a). 10 The regulations also provide that an inmate “shall be subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to a formal disciplinary process following an administrative finding that the inmate engaged in inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse or following a criminal finding…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 115.67(b) — 1 case
Jones v. Terronez (S.D. Cal. 2020).
“238, 244-48 (1983), and the PREA regulation on which 17 Plaintiff relies, 28 C.F.R. Section 115.67(b), does not require Plaintiff be transferred either.”
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.