28 C.F.R. § 541.20
Purpose
This subpart describes the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (Bureau) operation of special housing units (SHU) at Bureau institutions. The Bureau's operation of SHUs is authorized by 18 U.S.C. 4042(a)(2) and (3).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985).
Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985). “See 28 CFR § 541.20 (b) (1985). On the following day, each respondent was given a copy of the Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement 7400.”
Gonzalez v. Hasty, 651 F.3d 318 (2d Cir. 2011). “” 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.20 , 541.22. -3- Gonzalez was placed in administrative detention, a “non- punitive” form of separation, 28 C.”
United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (1984). “See 28 CFR § 541.20 (c) (1983). [3] Relying on his interpretation of current prison regulations, the Solicitor General vehemently argues that, whatever additional reasons legitimately may have contributed to the decision to confine respondents in the ADU, the primary reason for…”
United States v. William Gouveia, Robert Ramirez, Philip Segura, Adolpho Reynoso, Robert Eugene Mills, Richard Raymond Pierce, 704 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir. 1983). “See 28 C.F.R. § 541.20 (1982). It is perhaps the principal remedy available to prison officials when crime or other disturbances threaten the prison environment.”
Collazo-Leon v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 51 F.3d 315 (1st Cir. 1995). “Instead, the court directed all its attention to the substantive violation finding that the ex *317 press intent of the prison regulation authorizing segregation was “punishment,” 28 C.F.R. § 541.20 (a), 2 and that “less drastic resources were not considered” as alternatives to…”
MacLean v. Secor, 876 F. Supp. 695 (E.D. Pa. 1995). “at 796 (addressing disciplinary segregation regulations codified at 28 C.F.R. § 541.20 (a)). Thus, any attempt to read Frankenberry as conclusive on the issue here would have been inconsistent with the Third Circuit’s exhortation to focus on the “precise regulation” asserted as…”
Boudin v. Thomas, 533 F. Supp. 786 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). “” 28 C.F.R. § 541.20 (a) (1980). While I am not second-guessing the Warden’s determination that petitioner may indeed present risks of escape and potential violence, I believe that the institution’s response to this risk is exaggerated and consequently amounts to punishment in…”
Frankenberry v. Williams, 677 F. Supp. 793 (M.D. Penn. 1988). “28 C.F.R. § 541.20 (a). Therefore, plaintiff’s interest in not being committed to disciplinary segregation is a protected liberty interest.”
Adkins v. Martin, 699 F. Supp. 1510 (W.D. Okla. 1988). “Also see 28 C.F.R. Section 541.20. The possibility of “false positive” indication of illicit drugs is an important eviden-tiary consideration in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against inmates.”
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983). “' " 28 CFR § 541.20 (c) (1982). According to the Federal Government's brief, the inmate has a right to make a statement at his in-person review disputing the grounds for continued confinement in administrative detention, and he receives a written copy of the staff's decision and…”
United States v. Ezzat, 811 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (E.D.N.C. 2011). “He points specifically to the provision in the regulations stating that disciplinary segregation is to be imposed only when other available dispositions are inadequate to achieve “the purpose of punishment and deterrence necessary to regulate an inmate’s behavior within…”
Collazo-Leon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 855 F. Supp. 530 (D.P.R. 1994). “Before scrutinizing the factual circumstances surrounding this claim, we will first consider the regulation of the agency involved set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 541.20 , which deals with the justification for placement in disciplinary segregation.”
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.