An inmate may be permitted to correspond with an inmate confined in any other penal or correctional institution if the other inmate is either a member of the immediate family, or is a party or witness in a legal action in which both inmates are involved. Such correspondence may be approved in other exceptional circumstances, with particular regard to the security level of the institution, the nature of the relationship between the two inmates, and whether the inmate has other regular correspondence. The following additional limitations apply:
(a) Such correspondence at institutions of all security levels may always be inspected and read by staff at the sending and receiving institutions (it may not be sealed by the inmate); and
(b)(1) The appropriate unit manager at each institution must approve of the correspondence if both inmates are housed in Federal institutions and both inmates are members of the same immediate family or are a party or witness in a legal action in which both inmates are involved.
(2) The Wardens of both institutions must approve of the correspondence if one of the inmates is housed at a non-Federal institution or if approval is being granted on the basis of exceptional circumstances.
[50 FR 40109, Oct. 1, 1985, as amended at 61 FR 65204, Dec. 18, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case:
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
· cites it 2× “, 28 CFR § 540.17 (1986). As petitioners have shown, the only alternative proffered by the claimant prisoners, the monitoring of inmate correspondence, clearly would impose more than a de minimis cost on the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.”
Doss v. Gilkey, 649 F. Supp. 2d 905 (S.D. Ill. 2009).
· cites it 5× “See 28 C.F.R. § 540.17 . Mrs. Doss apparently divorced her then-husband and the plaintiffs were permitted to correspond for a few months, until November 2005, when their communications were again restricted, but purportedly for content-based reasons.”
O'Lone v. Est. of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987).
· cites it 2× “" Ante, at 93 (citing 28 CFR § 540.17 (1986)). In finding that there were alternatives to a stringent restriction on the ability to marry, the Court observed that marriages by inmates in federal prisons were generally permitted absent a threat to security or public safety.”
Intersimone v. Carlson, 512 F. Supp. 526 (M.D. Penn. 1980).
· cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 540.17 (c). We do not believe that such special treatment should be accorded a letter addressed to a member of the public even though it is marked “legal mail”.”
Jack Abbott v. Edwin Meese, Iii, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 824 F.2d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
“Prohibition on Inmate-to-Inmate Correspondence The regulation relating to correspondence between inmates, 28 C.F.R. § 540.17 (1986), reads as follows: An inmate may be permitted to correspond with an inmate confined in any other penal or correctional institution, providing the…”
Howard v. Keohane, 898 F. Supp. 459 (E.D. Ky. 1995).
· cites it 3× “08, codified as 28 C.F.R. § 540.17 , which provides: Correspondence between confined inmates.”
Thornley v. Edwards, 671 F. Supp. 339 (M.D. Penn. 1987).
“19, formerly 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.17 and 540.18, respectively, were first proposed at 42 Fed.”
Bruscino v. Pugh, 232 F. App'x 763 (10th Cir. 2007).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 540.17 . Finally, as to the claims regarding Grisby, the magistrate judge recommended finding that the restriction of the newspaper article in question was also “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
Stine v. Collins, 280 F. App'x 761 (10th Cir. 2008).
“He does not, however, identify the content of the communication or in what manner it was restricted. Thus, he has not alleged facts sufficient to warrant mandamus re *762 lief, and has failed to show that he has a clear right to an order allowing him to communicate with his…”
Bennett v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 753 (Fed. Cl. 1994).
“See Correspondence Between Confined Inmates 28 C.F.R. § 540.17 (1993) ("An inmate may be permitted to correspond with an inmate confined in any other penal or correctional institution, providing the other inmate is either a member of the immediate family, or is a party or a…”
Michael Strausbaugh v. Unknown Bacon (9th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The relevant regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 540.17 , provides that inmates “may” be permitted to correspond with incarcerated family members.”
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.