42 U.S.C. § 15601
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 118
cases (65 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority v. A.B.
West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority v. A.B. (2014)
“7 42 U.S.C. § 15601 et seq. (hereinafter “PREA”).”
Gonzalez v. Cnty. of Merced (2017)
“17 , hiring and promotion decisions, and 42 U.S.C. § 15601 , which are findings in the chapter titled Prison Rape Elimination, to show the risk of sexual assaults in jails.”
Crawford v. Cuomo (2015)
“, PREA, 42 U.S.C. § 15601 (finding that sexual abuse in prison results in higher rates of suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, HIV, AIDS, tuberculosis, recidivism, and violent crime, among other things); Sarah K.”
Jones v. Gusman (2013)
“412, at 45; see also 42 U.S.C.A. § 15601 (3) ("America's jails and prisons house more mentally ill individuals than all of the Nation’s psychiatric hospitals combined.”
Ezmerelda Rivera v. Manuel Fierros, Jr. (2017)
“Jail administrators are not permitted to “bury their heads in the sand” and ignore these obvious risks to the inmate populations they have an affirmative duty to protect.”
Teamsters Local Union No. 117 v. Washington Department of Corrections (2015)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 15601 . The legislation also noted that many instances of abuse go unreported and prison personnel were inadequately trained to deal with these issues.”
McCloud v. Prack (2014)
“In his response to defendants’ motion, plaintiff suggests that he may have a cause of action against Olles and Shepanski under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (''PREA”), 42 U.S.C. § 15601 . As this Court recently stated, however, “[njothing in the statute suggests that PREA…”
Chao v. Ballista (2011)
“Seemingly for the first time at summary judgment, the plaintiff claims that she also has a claim under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), 42 U.S.C. § 15601 et seq. She has cited no authority for her contention that PREA allows a private cause of action, however, and…”
Pena v. Greffet (2013)
“Throughout the factual allegations in her Complaint, Peña uses terms related to sexual abuse as they are defined in the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15601— 15609 ("PREA”). Peña is not, however, contending that the PREA applies to her claims in this case.”
Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice (2014)
“Plaintiff alleges that he is under constant threat of harm from other inmates because these records detail complaints filed with prison investigators pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 15601 et seq., the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”), which identify Plaintiff as an informant.”
McCracken v. Haas (2018)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 15601 , et seq. All prisoners in the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC") were assessed for their PREA status at that time.”
Omaro v. Annucci (2014)
“14 at 1); and (2) that he was not required to grieve his allegations of sexual assault as a result of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, •42 U.S.C. §§ 15601 et seq., and DOCCS’ Directive 4028A.”
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.