A Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) will review the incident report once the staff investigation is complete. The UDC's review involves the following:
(a) Available dispositions. The UDC will make one of the following decisions after reviewing the incident report:
(1) You committed the prohibited act(s) charged, and/or a similar prohibited act(s) as described in the incident report;
(2) You did not commit the prohibited act(s) charged; or
(3) The incident report will be referred to the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) for further review, based on the seriousness of the prohibited act(s) charged.
(4) If you are charged with a Greatest or High severity prohibited act, or are an inmate covered by § 541.4, the UDC will automatically refer the incident report to the DHO for further review.
(b) UDC members. The UDC ordinarily consists of two or more staff. UDC members will not be victims, witnesses, investigators, or otherwise significantly involved in the incident.
(c) Timing. The UDC will ordinarily review the incident report within five work days after it is issued, not counting the day it was issued, weekends, and holidays. UDC review of the incident report may also be suspended if it is being investigated for possible criminal prosecution.
(d) Inmate appearance. You are permitted to appear before the UDC during its review of the incident report, except during UDC deliberations or when your presence would jeopardize institution security, at the UDC's discretion. Also:
(1) You may appear either in person or electronically (for example, by video or telephone conferencing) at the UDC's discretion.
(2) You may waive your appearance before the UDC. If you waive your appearance, the UDC will review the incident report in your absence.
(3) If you escape or are otherwise absent from custody, the UDC will conduct a review in your absence at the institution where you were last confined.
(e) Evidence. You are entitled to make a statement and present documentary evidence to the UDC on your own behalf. The UDC will consider all evidence presented during its review. The UDC's decision will be based on at least some facts and, if there is conflicting evidence, on the greater weight of the evidence.
(f) Sanctions. If you committed a prohibited act or prohibited acts, the UDC can impose any of the available sanctions in Tables 1 and 2 of § 541.3, except loss of good conduct time credit, FSA Time Credits, disciplinary segregation, or monetary fines.
(g) Referral to the DHO. If the UDC refers the incident report to the DHO for further review, the UDC will advise you of your rights at the upcoming DHO hearing, as detailed in § 541.8.
(h) Written report. You will receive a written copy of the UDC's decision following its review of the incident report.
(i) Appeals. You may appeal the UDC's action(s) through the Administrative Remedy Program, 28 CFR part 542, subpart B.
[75 FR 76267, Dec. 8, 2010; 75 FR 81854, Dec. 29, 2010; 87 FR 2719, Jan. 19, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Brennan v. United States, 646 F. App'x 662 (10th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.7 , 541.8. At the hearing, Mr.”
Mark Green v. Fed. Det. Ctr., 528 F. App'x 160 (3rd Cir. 2013).
“Wallace also contends that BOP officials violated 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 (c), 4 by not conducting a hearing within three days of the alleged conduct.”
Johnson Obiegbu v. Robert Werlinger, 488 F. App'x 585 (3rd Cir. 2012).
“Furthermore, to the extent that Obiegbu claims that 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 contemplates an initial hearing before the UDC, we note that, even if this regulation were violated, Obiegbu has failed to show that he was prejudiced.”
Craig v. Kizziah (E.D. Ky. 2019).
· cites it 5× “]” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 (a)(4). applicable reg, with a familiar qualifier, indicates only that “the UDC will ordinarily review the incident report within five work days after it is issued[.”
Villegas-martinez v. Moser (W.D. Pa. 2020).
· cites it 5× “09 and 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 (h), he did not receive a copy of the UDC’s decision until the time he received the DHO’s Report; (2) that one of his issues was not addressed on appeal, (3) that in 4 violation of PS 5270.”
Schenk v. Earwin (D. Maryland 2022).
· cites it 4× “; see also 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 (a)(4). The UDC may impose sanctions but those sanctions may not include loss of good conduct time.”
Lillard v. Jacquez (D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 4× “Ground One In Ground One, Petitioner asserts that the UDC proceedings were not impartial because they were conducted by Counselor Cray, who allegedly “was significantly involved in the incident” in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 (b).4 (Pet. at 3.) In support of this claim,…”
Robinson v. Moser (W.D. Pa. 2020).
· cites it 4× “7 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 (b). The inmate, in turn, is entitled to appear before the UDC during its review of the incident report, except during UDC deliberations or when the inmate’s presence would jeopardize institution security, and the inmate is entitled to make a statement and…”
Mason v. Lemaster (E.D. Ky. 2024).
· cites it 4× “” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 (b) (emphasis added). Through its use of the word “ordinarily,” the regulation contemplates that the UDC may include only one staff member in a given instance.”
Ali v. Streeval (W.D. Va. 2024).
· cites it 4× “See 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.7 (c), (d), (e). After considering all of the evidence presented at the review, the UDC makes a decision on the IR.”
Ali v. Streeval (W.D. Va. 2024).
· cites it 4× “See 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.7 (c), (d), (e). After considering all the evidence presented at the review, the UDC makes a decision on the IR.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(b) — 4 cases
Lillard v. Jacquez (D. Or. 2023).
“Ground One In Ground One, Petitioner asserts that the UDC proceedings were not impartial because they were conducted by Counselor Cray, who allegedly “was significantly involved in the incident” in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 (b).4 (Pet. at 3.) In support of this claim,…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(e) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(i) — 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.