28 C.F.R. § 540.15

Restricted general correspondence

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Warden may place an inmate on restricted general correspondence based on misconduct or as a matter of classification. Determining factors include the inmate's:

(1) Involvement in any of the activities listed in § 540.14(d);

(2) Attempting to solicit funds or items (e.g., samples), or subscribing to a publication without paying for the subscription;

(3) Being a security risk;

(4) Threatening a government official; or

(5) Having committed an offense involving the mail.

(b) The Warden may limit to a reasonable number persons on the approved restricted general correspondence list of an inmate.

(1) Where the restriction will be based upon an incident report, procedures must be followed in accordance with inmate disciplinary regulations (part 541, subpart B of this chapter).

(2) Where there is no incident report, the Warden:

(i) Shall advise the inmate in writing of the reasons the inmate is to be placed on restricted general correspondence;

(ii) Shall give the inmate the opportunity to respond to the classification or change in classification; the inmate has the option to respond orally or to submit written information or both; and

(iii) Shall notify the inmate of the decision and the reasons, and shall advise the inmate that the inmate may appeal the decision under the Administrative Remedy Procedure.

(d) When an inmate is placed on restricted general correspondence, the inmate may, except as provided in §§ 540.16 and 540.17:

(1) Correspond with the inmate's spouse, mother, father, children, and siblings, unless the correspondent is involved in any violation of correspondence regulations, or would be a threat to the security or good order of the institution;

(2) Request other persons also to be placed on the approved correspondence list, subject to investigation, evaluation, and approval by the Warden; with prior approval, the inmate may write to a proposed correspondence to obtain a release authorizing an investigation; and

(3) Correspond with former business associates, unless it appears to the Warden that the proposed correspondent would be a threat to the security or good order of the institution, or that the resulting correspondence could reasonably be expected to result in criminal activity. Correspondence with former business associates is limited to social matters.

(e) The Warden may allow an inmate additional correspondence with persons other than those on the inmate's approved mailing list when the correspondence is shown to be necessary and does not require an addition to the mailing list because it is not of an ongoing nature.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2023 · leading case: Akers v. Watts, 740 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Akers v. Watts, 740 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 4× “” 28 C.F.R. § 540.15 (a). Among the determining fac *96 tors is an inmate’s “[bjaving committed an offense involving the mail.”

Hale v. Ashcroft, 683 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D. Colo. 2009). · cites it 4× “However, although the SAMs were lifted, the BOP placed plaintiff on “Restricted General Correspondence Status” and “Restricted Mail Status” pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 540.15 and § 540.18. The effect of these restrictions is to limit plaintiffs ability to correspond with persons…”

United States v. Evans Santos Diaz, 66 F.4th 435 (3rd Cir. 2023). “See 28 C.F.R. § 540.15 (2018). Looking at the two statutes separately and together, Congress intended for the BOP to control conditions of confinement of all incarcerated individuals.”

United States v. Derek Allmon, Sr., 702 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2012). “, 28 C.F.R. § 540.15 which allows wardens to restrict an inmate's general correspondence.”

Akers v. Watts (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 540.15 (a)(5). If the general correspondence restriction is not based on an incident report, the Warden must advise the inmate in writing of the reasons for the restriction, give the inmate an opportunity to respond, and notify the inmate of his decision and the…”

Davis v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (10th Cir. 2020). “Davis on Correspondence Restrictions (“CRs”) under 28 C.F.R. § 540.15 for a six-month transition period.”

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.