28 C.F.R. § 541.22
Status when placed in the SHU
When placed in the SHU, you are either in administrative detention status or disciplinary segregation status.
(a) Administrative detention status. Administrative detention status is an administrative status which removes you from the general population when necessary to ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, or protect the public. Administrative detention status is non-punitive, and can occur for a variety of reasons.
(b) Disciplinary segregation status. Disciplinary segregation status is a punitive status imposed only by a Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) as a sanction for committing a prohibited act(s).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (3rd Cir. 2012).
Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (3rd Cir. 2012). “76 ¶ 19 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 541.22 (a)). 2 Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) regulations require the Warden of a detention facility to prepare an administrative order “detailing the reasons for placing an inmate in administrative detention” within 24 hours of the inmate’s placement, and…”
Salvador Magluta v. F.P. Sam Samples, 375 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2004). “22 , which governs the Bureau’s placement and review of inmates in administrative detention, creates a protected liberty interest, and that his placement and continued confinement in administrative detention — in the absence of the notice, hearings, and assorted reviews § 541.22…”
Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2000). “Plaintiffs complaint alleges that defendants violated his liberty interests and procedural due process rights conferred by 28 C.F.R. § 541.22 and protected by the Due Process Clause.”
Jordan v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 191 F. App'x 639 (10th Cir. 2006). “ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Appellant Mark Jordan appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees, officials of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1 on his Bivens 2 action alleging the conditions and duration of his five-year administrative detention,…”
United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (1984). “" 28 CFR § 541.22 (a) (1983). The Court of Appeals construed the Bureau of Prisons' regulations to permit detention for disciplinary purposes for no more than 90 days.”
Gonzalez v. Hasty, 651 F.3d 318 (2d Cir. 2011). “” 28 C.F.R. § 541.22 (a). In order to ensure inmates are placed in a SHU for cause, and once there, only for a limited period of time, federal regulations governing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) designate that a Segregation Review Officer (“SRO”) be responsible for conducting a…”
Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2007). “The regulations governing administrative segregation, 28 C.F.R. § 541.22 , entitle inmates to “an administrative detention order detailing the reasons for placing an inmate in administrative detention .”
Gonzalez v. Hasty, 802 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2015). “While in the SHU, Gonzalez was not afforded all of the procedural protections to which he asserts he was entitled under 28 C.F.R. § 541.22 (c)(1). 5 This rule required that within three work days of an inmate’s confinement in the SHU, a Segregation Review Officer (“SRO”) review…”
Gonzalez v. Hasty, 269 F. Supp. 3d 45 (E.D.N.Y 2017). “Plaintiff claimed that Warden Hasty *55 had no legitimate reason to hold him in the SHU, that plaintiff had not been given a meaningful opportunity to contest his incarceration in the SHU pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 541.22 ,. and thus, he'demanded his release from the SHU.”
Petrucelli v. Hasty, 605 F. Supp. 2d 410 (E.D.N.Y 2009). “07 and as is required by 28 C.F.R § 541.22. (Ex. D to Dannels Decl.”
Hill v. Fleming, 173 F. App'x 664 (10th Cir. 2006). “§ 1983 action alleging the conditions and duration of his 399-day administrative detention, together with the federal prison regulations in 28 C.F.R. § 541.22 , created a liberty interest triggering procedural due process protections which the prison officials violated.”
United States v. Khan, 540 F. Supp. 2d 344 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “” 28 C.F.R. § 541.22 (c)(1) (emphasis added).”
— 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(a) — 1 case
Vallina v. Meese, 704 F. Supp. 769 (E.D. Mich. 1989).
— 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(a)(4) — 1 case
Farmer v. Carlson, 685 F. Supp. 1335 (M.D. Penn. 1988).
— 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(b) — 1 case
Farmer v. Carlson, 685 F. Supp. 1335 (M.D. Penn. 1988).
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.