(a) Incident report. The discipline process starts when staff witness or reasonably believe that you committed a prohibited act. A staff member will issue you an incident report describing the incident and the prohibited act(s) you are charged with committing. You will ordinarily receive the incident report within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of your involvement in the incident.
(b) Investigation. After you receive an incident report, a Bureau staff member will investigate it.
(1) Information: The investigator will specifically inform you:
(A) of the charge(s) against you; and
(B) that you may remain silent at all stages of the discipline process, but that your silence may be used to draw an adverse inference against you at any stage of the process. Your silence alone, however, cannot be the basis for finding you committed the prohibited act(s).
(2) Statement: When the investigator asks for your statement, you may give an explanation of the incident, request any witnesses be interviewed, or request that other evidence be obtained and reviewed. However, the staff investigation of the incident report may be suspended before requesting your statement if it is being investigated for possible criminal prosecution.
(3) Informally resolving the incident report. The incident report may be informally resolved at any stage of the disciplinary process, except for prohibited acts in the Greatest and High severity levels, or as otherwise required by law or these regulations. If the incident report is informally resolved, it will be removed from your records.
Notes of Decisions
Brennan v. United States, 646 F. App'x 662 (10th Cir. 2016).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 541.5 (a) (stating to inmates: “You will ordinarily receive the incident report within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of your involvement in the incident”).”
James Lang v. Delbert Sauers, 529 F. App'x 121 (3rd Cir. 2013).
“” However, the incident occurred on September 15, 2011, and the DHO’s report indicates that Lang received notice of the charge on September 16, 2011.”
George Sepulveda v. Warden Canaan USP, 645 F. App'x 115 (3rd Cir. 2016).
“The MJ noted in his Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) that the Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) has adopted specific *117 guidelines for inmate discipline procedures set forth at 28 C.”
Chandler v. Stover, 211 F. Supp. 3d 289 (D.D.C. 2016).
“at 13, roughly two hours beyond the 24-hour period within which an inmate “will ordinarily receive the incident report,” 28 C.F.R. § 541.5 (a) (emphasis added). A disciplinary hearing took place on April 30, 2015, see Defs.”
Mendoza v. Winer, 451 F. App'x 715 (10th Cir. 2011).
“5(a) is advisory, providing that written charges “ordinarily” should be given within a day, and the flexible language may very well have been designed to accommodate a situation like this, where the BOP had a strong suspicion of a violation but wanted confirmation from a lab and…”
Mark Green v. Fed. Det. Ctr., 528 F. App'x 160 (3rd Cir. 2013).
“First, Wallace alleges that prison officials did not present him with charges within 24 hours of the conduct in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 541.5 (a) 2 , which states that a prisoner is to “ordinarily receive the incident report within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of [his]…”
Mark Jacques v. Bureau of Prisons, 632 F. App'x 225 (5th Cir. 2016).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 541.5 (a) (emphasis added). Even assuming that Jacques sufficiently alleged a violation of a prison regulation, a failure to follow such procedures does not necessarily “establish a violation of due process, because ‘constitutional minima may nevertheless have been…”
Buhl v. Berkebile, 612 F. App'x 539 (10th Cir. 2015).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 541.5 (a) (“You will ordinarily receive the incident repori within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of your involvement in the incident.”
Lacey v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.N.J. 2019).
· cites it 7× “Notice of Charges Under 28 C.F.R. § 541.5 1. The Parties’ Arguments Petitioner was placed in the SHU without notice of the charges on December 17, 2015.”
Chambers v. Rivers (N.D. Ill. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Chambers; (7) staff violated 28 C.F.R. § 541.5 and § 541.7(a)(4);2 (8) the FBI never prepared a report; (9) there was no Special Investigator Supervisor report; and (10) the Bureau of Prisons did not process his BP-10 within 30 days as required under 28 C.”
Szczerba v. Warden, Ft. Dix, Nj (D.N.J. 2022).
· cites it 4× “) • the DHO's decision is based on insufficient evidence • the incident report was too vague to give him adequate notice to prepare a defense to the disciplinary charges • reporting staff did not have reasonable belief that Petitioner violated Codes 108 and 113, in violation of…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a) — 1 case
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.