CIM cases are classified according to the following assignments:
(a) Witness Security cases. Individuals who agree to cooperate with law enforcement, judicial, or correctional authorities, frequently place their lives or safety in jeopardy by being a witness or intended witness against persons or groups involved in illegal activities. Accordingly, procedures have been developed to help ensure the safety of these individuals. There are two types of Witness Security cases: Department of Justice (authorized by the Attorney General under title V of Public Law 91-452, 84 Stat. 933); and Bureau of Prisons Witness Security cases (authorized by the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division).
(b) Threats to government officials. Inmates who have made threats to government officials or who have been identified, in writing, by the United States Secret Service as requiring special surveillance.
(c) Broad publicity. Inmates who have received widespread publicity as a result of their criminal activity or notoriety as public figures.
(d) Disruptive group. Inmates who belong to or are closely affiliated with groups (e.g., prison gangs), which have a history of disrupting operations and security in either state or federal penal (which includes correctional and detention facilities) institutions. This assignment also includes those persons who may require separation from a specific disruptive group.
(e) State prisoners. Inmates, other than Witness Security cases, who have been accepted into the Bureau of Prisons for service of their state sentences. This assignment includes cooperating state witnesses and regular state boarders.
(f) Separation. Inmates who may not be confined in the same institution (unless the institution has the ability to prevent any physical contact between the separatees) with other specified individuals who are presently housed in federal custody or who may come into federal custody in the future. Factors to consider in classifying an individual to this assignment include, but are not limited to, testimony provided by or about an individual (in open court, to a grand jury, etc.), and whether the inmate has exhibited aggressive or intimidating behavior towards other specific individuals, either in the community or within the institution. This assignment also includes those inmates who have provided authorities with information concerning the unauthorized or illegal activities of others. This assignment may also include inmates from whom there is no identifiable threat, but who are to be separated from others at the request of the Federal Judiciary or U.S. Attorneys.
(g) Special supervision. Inmates who require special management attention, but who do not ordinarily warrant assignment in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section. For example, this assignment may include an inmate with a background in law enforcement or an inmate who has been involved in a hostage situation. Others may include those who are members of a terrorist group with a potential for violence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case:
Parrott v. United States, 536 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2008).
Parrott v. United States, 536 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “28 C.F.R. § 524.72 (f) (emphasis added). Thus, if at the time prison staff placed Parrott and Gregory together in the recreation area the two were on separation status from each other, then the Terre Haute officials violated BOP's own regulations and orders.”
John C. Babcock v. R.L. White & G. McDaniel, 102 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The regulations in place at the time defined separation cases as “[(Inmates who may not be confined in the same facility with other specified individuals,” 28 C.F.R. § 524.72 (g) (1992), 1 and Babcock received notice to the effect that he would “not be housed with other specific…”
Joshua Rich v. United States, 811 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Although 28 C.F.R. § 524.72 (d) provides that inmates “may require separation from a specific disruptive group [such as a prison gang]” (emphasis added), nothing in this regulation requires that any specific action be taken by the various prison officials.”
Miller v. Turner, 26 F. App'x 560 (7th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 3× “Although Miller’s brief is not entirely clear, he appears to be arguing on appeal that the district court erred in (1) denying his request for a preliminary injunction; (2) dismissing his due process claim that 28 C.F.R. § 524.72 (g) required prison officials to transfer him to…”
Alfrey v. United States, 276 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 2× “When the "State prisoners" category was first included in 28 C.F.R. § 524.72 in 1982, it was designated as subsection (f).”
Edward Ashford v. USA, 463 F. App'x 387 (5th Cir. 2012).
“Ashford contends that these separation orders trigger the mandatory requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 524.72 (f), and thus render the discretionary function exception inapplicable.”
Huskey v. Quinlan, 785 F. Supp. 4 (D.D.C. 1992).
“In essence, the Complaint alleges that Defendants have misclassified Plaintiff under the terms of 28 C.F.R. § 524.72 (h), resulting in indefinite segregated confinement, and further, that Defendants have intentionally conspired in violation of 42 U.”
Roque v. United States, 676 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D. Conn. 2009).
“at ¶ 15) (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 524.72 (f).) Warden Smith extended Edward Roque’s CIM “Separation” assignment on August 22, 2005, but the BOP nonetheless “confined Roque in a two-man prison cell with Salazar.”
Martin v. United States (D. Colo. 2022).
· cites it 5× “Finally, Plaintiff references 28 C.F.R. § 524.72 (f), which the court liberally construes as an assertion that this regulation precludes discretion in the separation of inmates.”
Martin v. United States (D. Colo. 2023).
· cites it 5× “Inmates who may not be confined in the same institution (unless the institution has the ability to prevent any physical contact between the separatees) with other specified individuals who are presently housed in federal custody or who may come into federal custody in the future.”
Parrott, Roy S. v. United States (7th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 524.72 (f) (emphasis added). Thus, if at the time prison staff placed Parrott and Gregory together in the recreation area the two were on separation status from each other, then the Terre Haute officials violated BOP’s own regula- tions and orders.”
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.