When correspondence is rejected, the Warden shall notify the sender in writing of the rejection and the reasons for the rejection. The Warden shall also give notice that the sender may appeal the rejection. The Warden shall also notify an inmate of the rejection of any letter addressed to that inmate, along with the reasons for the rejection and shall notify the inmate of the right to appeal the rejection. The Warden shall refer an appeal to an official other than the one who originally disapproved the correspondence. The Warden shall return rejected correspondence to the sender unless the correspondence includes plans for or discussion of commission of a crime or evidence of a crime, in which case there is no need to return the correspondence or give notice of the rejection, and the correspondence should be referred to appropriate law enforcement authorities. Also, contraband need not be returned to the sender.
Notes of Decisions
Bonner v. Outlaw (2009)
ca8 · cites it 5×
“28 C.F.R. § 540.13 . Outlaw argues this regulation distinguishes between letters *678 and other correspondence, requiring an inmate be notified for rejections of the former but not the latter.”
Howard Meadows v. Hal R. Hopkins, Warden, F.C.I. (1983)
ca6 · cites it 4×
“The remaining issue concerns Bureau of Prisons regulation 28 C.F.R. § 540.13 . 3 That provision authorizes institution staff to open, inspect and read if necessary the incoming and outgoing general correspondence of inmates.”
James W. Wheeler v. United States (1981)
ca9 · cites it 2×
“The court appears to be the appropriate governmental authority to request the warden to exercise his supervisory powers under 28 C.F.R. § 540.13 (d) in order to protect a trial witness.”
Gilliam v. Quinlan (1985)
nysd · cites it 4×
“Intersimone may be factually the most apposite case since the plaintiff there was placed on “restricted general correspondence” pursuant to the predecessor of the current 28 C.F.R. § 540.13 (e)(4). 15 In that case, the prison administrators placed the prisoner on “restricted…”
Lutz v. Hemingway (2007)
mied
“’s prior mail regulations found in 28 C.F.R. § 540.13 , which are similar to the current regulations and likewise authorized prison staff at low security, facilities to read incoming prisoner mail, .”
Heimerle v. ATTY. GEN., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1983)
nysd · cites it 5×
“Accordingly, 28 C.F.R. § 540.13 (b), which allows incoming mail to be read “as frequently as deemed necessary to maintain security or monitor a particular problem confronting an inmate”, and 28 C.”
Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice (2015)
dcd
“Pinson also asserts that his prison address remained unchanged during the period of time in question, and that the BOP never informed him that it rejected any mail from the OIG as required by 28 C.F.R. § 540.13 . Pinson Decl. ¶ 4. The Court finds that there is a genuine issue of…”
United States v. Hilton Jerry Kelton (1986)
ca8
“28 C.F.R. § 540.13 (1985) provides in part that: (d) Outgoing mail in Security Level 4, 5, and 6 and administrative institutions, except “special mail,” may not be sealed by the inmate and may be inspected and read by staff.”
Heimerle v. Attorney General (1985)
ca2 · cites it 2×
“28 C.F.R. § 540.13 (b). No issue has been raised in this case concerning the reading of Heimerle’s incoming mail in order to “monitor a particular problem confronting” this inmate.”
Kalka v. Megathlin (1998)
azd · cites it 2×
“Defendant Shee-hey’s actions fall directly into this murky area, as no law defines what the inspection may entail to determine if an enclosure qualifies as special mail.”
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.