Filed: Aug. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's pro se motion for relief under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). (Doc. No. 35). The defendant is currently housed at FCI-Pollack (Louisiana) and complains that he has been threatened with harm by inmates and has been mistreated by prison officials. ( Id. at 1-2). When he was previously housed in the Gaston County jail, he raised PREA claims in a civil action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. (C
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's pro se motion for relief under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). (Doc. No. 35). The defendant is currently housed at FCI-Pollack (Louisiana) and complains that he has been threatened with harm by inmates and has been mistreated by prison officials. ( Id. at 1-2). When he was previously housed in the Gaston County jail, he raised PREA claims in a civil action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. (Ca..
More
ORDER
ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's pro se motion for relief under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). (Doc. No. 35).
The defendant is currently housed at FCI-Pollack (Louisiana) and complains that he has been threatened with harm by inmates and has been mistreated by prison officials. (Id. at 1-2). When he was previously housed in the Gaston County jail, he raised PREA claims in a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Case No. 3:18-cv-86, Doc. No. 11: Amended Complaint at 15). In dismissing those claims as frivolous, the Court recognized:
Nothing in the PREA suggests that Congress intended to create a private right of action for inmates to sue prison officials for noncompliance with the Act. See Chapman v. Willis, 2013 WL 2322947 at *4 (W.D. Va. May 28, 2013); Ball v. Beckworth, 2011 WL 4375806 at *4 (D. Mont. Aug. 31, 2011) (citing cases). "The PREA is intended to address the problem of rape in prison, authorizes grant money, and creates a commission to study the issue.... The statute does not grant prisoners any specific rights." Chinnici v. Edwards, 2008 WL 3851294 at *3 (D. Vt. Aug.13, 2008).
(Case No. 3:18-cv-86, Doc. No. 16: Order at 15, Whitney, C.J.). Accordingly, this Court finds that the defendant is not entitled to relief on the claims in the instant motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, that the defendant's pro se motion is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to certify copies of this order to the defendant, the Federal Public Defender, the United States Attorney, and the United States Marshals Service.
