42 U.S.C. § 15602
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Giraldo v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 168 Cal. App. 4th 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
Giraldo v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 168 Cal. App. 4th 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “, enacted by the United States Congress in 2003, which expressly states its purposes are to: “establish a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of prison rape in prisons in the United States” ( 42 U.S.C. § 15602 (1)), “increase the accountability of prison officials who fail…”
John Does 8-10 v. Rick Snyder, 945 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2019). “§ 30302 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 15602 ). Congress found that juvenile “offenders are at increased risk of sexual victimization” and “are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in adult rather than juvenile facilities—often within the first 48 hours of incarceration.”
Green v. Martin, 224 F. Supp. 3d 154 (D. Conn. 2016). “Prison Raye Elimination Act Claim In his complaint, Green alleges that Defendant Santiago failed to comply *171 with the Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15602 . To the extent that he is attempting to assert a claim for violation of the statute, his claim fails as' there…”
Commonwealth v. Gernrich, 67 N.E.3d 1196 (Mass. 2017). “42 U.S.C. § 15602 (2012). To accomplish this purpose, the act provides, among other things, grants to States to assist them in protecting inmates and safeguarding communities to which the inmates return.”
Doe v. Cnty. of Milwaukee, 225 F. Supp. 3d 790 (E.D. Wis. 2016). “225 (2)(h); 42 U.S.C. § 15602 (stating that one purpose of the Prison Rape Elimination Act is to' “establish a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of prison rape in prisons in the United Statesf.”
(PC) Parker v. Sgt. Garcia (E.D. Cal. 2024). “42 U.S.C. §§ 15602 , 15605; Blair v. Herrera-Salazar, 2019 WL 8 13448296, at *5–6 (S.”
Hale v. Pounds (D. Idaho 2019). “Standard of Law Plaintiff also alleges that various prison officials violated his civil rights by failing to follow the guidelines and procedures of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (“PREA”), as set forth in 42 U.”
(PC) Hasha v. Gamboa (E.D. Cal. 2025). “42 U.S.C. §§ 15602 , 15605; Blair v. Herrera-Salazar, 2019 WL 19 13448296, at *5–6 (S.”
(HC) Rutledge v. Growdon (E.D. Cal. 2021). “24 //// 25 26 2 42 U.S.C. § 15602 is currently codified as 34 U.”
Carroll v. Pollard (S.D. Cal. 2020). “5, 2015) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 15602 , 15605). But “[n]othing in the PREA explicitly or implicitly suggests that Congress intended to create a private right of action for inmates to sue prison 27 officials for noncompliance with the Act.”
Carroll v. Toele (S.D. Cal. 2020). “5, 2015) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 15602 , 15605). But “[n]othing in the PREA explicitly or implicitly suggests that Congress intended to create a private right of action for inmates to sue prison 27 officials for noncompliance with the Act.”
Giles v. Correct Care Solutions (D. Maryland 2020). “On or about July 10, 2019, Giles was subject to an investigation and disciplinary charge 4 PREA, 42 U.S.C. § 15602 , et seq., provides inmates with the opportunity to confidentially report sexual assaults or sexual harassment in jails and prisons via a telephone hotline.”
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.