28 C.F.R. § 541.1
Purpose
This subpart describes the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (Bureau) inmate discipline program. This program helps ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, and the protection of the public, by allowing Bureau staff to impose sanctions on inmates who commit prohibited acts. Sanctions will not be imposed in a capricious or retaliatory manner. The Bureau's inmate discipline program is authorized by 18 U.S.C. 4042(a)(3).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (28 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: Jordan v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C. 2021).
Jordan v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C. 2021). “” 28 C.F.R. § 541.1 . Prohibited acts are then grouped into four categories based on severity level – greatest, high, moderate, and low – with multiple options for sanctions of progressive severity at each level.”
Cardoza v. Pullen (D. Conn. 2022). “Petitioner posits that the BOP was required to follow the “Inmate Discipline Program,” set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 541.1 et seq., when it revoked her home confinement for a disciplinary reason.”
Jean v. Johns (W.D. Mich. 2021). “The UDC hearing was held on 01/17/2020 which is clearly well over 5 working days.”
Chavez 65935-112 v. Breckon (W.D. Mich. 2023). “” 28 C.F.R. § 541.1 . The regulations define staff as “any employee of the Bureau of Prisons or Federal Prison 5 Petitioner does not contest the DHO’s authority to conduct the hearing, and the authority to impose sanctions under the regulations is separate from the authority to…”
Lillard v. Jacquez (D. Or. 2023). “DeBoer that I should not be re-hired in education, as well as the sanctions were arbitrary and capricious and not allowed, all in violation of 28 C.F.R. Section 541.1. accountable for your actions.”
Derek Capozzi v. USP Lewisburg Warden, 610 F. App'x 105 (3rd Cir. 2015). “He argues that the text of those regulations makes clear that the BOP’s disciplinary rules apply only to inmates in physical custody of the Bureau, either by being in a BOP facility, or by being designated to a facility with which the BOP has an agreement. 3 He notes that at the…”
Alanis v. Ciolli (N.D. Ill. 2021). “See 28 C.F.R. § 541.1 , et seq. Under 28 C.F.”
Roberts v. Williams (S.D. Ill. 2021). “28 C.F.R. § 541.1 . As such, this Court finds that the appropriate infraction was identified and was not too severe.”
Caldwell v. LeMaster (E.D. Ky. 2024). “and 28 C.F.R. § 541.1 ef seq., and unidentified Program Statements issued by the Bureau of Prisons.”
Richardson v. Ortiz (D.N.J. 2021). “The incident report must “describe[e] the incident and the prohibited act(s) [the inmate] is charged with committing.”
Randolph v. Bureau of Prisons - D.H.O. (D.N.J. 2022). “See 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.1 to 541.8; see Von Kahl v.”
Szczerba v. Warden, Ft. Dix, Nj (D.N.J. 2022). “8 (3)(b) • the sanctions were imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 541.1 • the DHO ignored exculpatory witness testimony and did not base his decision on the greater weight of the evidence • the BOP's Regional Director and the Central…”
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.