28 C.F.R. § 40.1

Definitions

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

For the purposes of this part—

(a) Act means the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, Public Law 96-247, 94 Stat. 349 (42 U.S.C. 1997).

(b) Applicant means a state or political subdivision of a state that submits to the Attorney General a request for certification of a grievance procedure.

(d) Grievance means a written complaint by an inmate on the inmate's own behalf regarding a policy applicable within an institution, a condition in an institution, an action involving an inmate of an institution, or an incident occurring within an institution. The term “grievance” does not include a complaint relating to a parole decision.

(e) Inmate means an individual confined in an institution for adults, who has been convicted of a crime.

(f) Institution means a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, or pretrial detention facility that houses adult inmates and is owned, operated, or managed by or provides services on behalf of a State or political subdivision of a State.

(g) State means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any of the territories and possessions of the United States.

(h) Substantial compliance means that there is no omission of any essential part from compliance, that any omission consists only of an unimportant defect or omission, and that there has been a firm effort to comply fully with the standards.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2010). “Much of this material will find its way into the pleadings and briefs and thus be shared with the opponent.”

Al-Shabazz v. State, 527 S.E.2d 742 (S.C. 2000). “1999); see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 40.1 to 40.22 (1998) (standards for inmate grievance procedures).”

William Clifton Lewis v. James Meyer, 815 F.2d 43 (7th Cir. 1987). “” 28 C.F.R. § 40.1 (h). So far as we can tell, the state has done little if anything to comply with §§ 40.”

Hyson v. Neubert, 820 F. Supp. 184 (D.N.J. 1993). “Before a court can impose an exhaustion requirement it, or the Attorney General, must determine that the state's proce *191 dures meet the standards promulgated in 28 C.F.R. § 40.1 et seq. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997e(a)(2) and (b).”

Ode v. Smith, 118 Misc. 2d 617 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983). “4040 have not been certified by the Federal courts as being in compliance with the standards of the Federal Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (US Code, tit 42, § 1997e) or the act’s corresponding regulations (28 CFR 40.1 et seq.; 46 Fed Reg No. 190, Oct.”

Caldwell v. LeMaster (E.D. Ky. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 3553 (a)(2)(D); 28 C.F.R. § 40.1 ef seq. and 28 C.F.R. § 541.”

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.