(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Administrative Remedy Program is to allow an inmate to seek formal review of an issue relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement. An inmate may not submit a Request or Appeal on behalf of another inmate.
(b) Scope. This Program applies to all inmates in institutions operated by the Bureau of Prisons, to inmates designated to contract Community Corrections Centers (CCCs) under Bureau of Prisons responsibility, and to former inmates for issues that arose during their confinement. This Program does not apply to inmates confined in other non-federal facilities.
(c) Statutorily-mandated procedures. There are statutorily-mandated procedures in place for tort claims (28 CFR part 543, subpart C), Inmate Accident Compensation claims (28 CFR part 301), and Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act requests (28 CFR part 513, subpart D). If an inmate raises an issue in a request or appeal that cannot be resolved through the Administrative Remedy Program, the Bureau will refer the inmate to the appropriate statutorily-mandated procedures.
[67 FR 50805, Aug. 6, 2002]
Notes of Decisions
Stephen Koprowski v. Karen Baker, 822 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 6× “28 C.F.R. § 542.10 (a). Once the ARP’s grievance procedure has been completed, the inmate may file suit in federal court seeking injunctive relief.”
John Kalu v. Spaulding, 113 F.4th 311 (3rd Cir. 2024).
· cites it 4× “” 6 See 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 (a). Under the BOP’s administrative procedures, an inmate must first attempt an informal resolution by “present[ing] an issue of concern informally to staff.”
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001).
· cites it 2× “See 28 CFR § 542.10 (2001) (explaining ARP as providing "a process through which inmates may seek formal review of an issue which relates to any aspect of their confinement").”
Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012).
· cites it 2× “See 28 CFR §542.10 et seq. (2011). And if that does not work, he may seek a writ of habeas corpus.”
Tony Fisher v. Jordan Hollingsworth, 115 F.4th 197 (3rd Cir. 2024).
“81 In doing so, we track the Supreme Court’s holding in Egbert that an agency’s grievance process is a special factor foreclosing Bivens relief. 82 And we recognize the abrogation of Bistrian’s contrary holding that “[t]he administrative grievance process is not an alternative…”
Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 542.10 et seq. [1] Ward argues, however, that any administrative appeal would have been futile, as the denial was based on an official policy of the BOP: the IFRP.”
Jordan Dongarra v. D. Smith, 27 F.4th 174 (3rd Cir. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Second, Dongarra could sue for an in- junction. Federal courts may award prisoners temporary re- straining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent pro- spective relief.”
Charles Mack v. John Yost, 968 F.3d 311 (3rd Cir. 2020).
“(quoting 28 CFR § 542.10 (2001)). 8 The fact that Mack was unsuccessful in obtaining relief through this program “does not mean that he did not have access to alternative or meaningful remedies.”
Douglas Nyhuis v. Janet Reno, Attorney Gen. Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney Gen. Kathleen Hawk, Dir.-Bop John Hahn, Warden, 204 F.3d 65 (3rd Cir. 2000).
· cites it 2× “13, ¶6(b)(1)-(3) (1996) (refusing to consider claims for monetary relief), and a request for injunctive relief, which is available from the Bureau, see 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 (1999). Therefore, unlike the cases recognizing the futility exception, in which the inmate asked the…”
Gordon Reid v. Hugh J. Hurwitz, 920 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “1, 2011); and (3) BOP deprived him of meaningful access to the administrative remedy procedures in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 and BOP Program Statement 1330.”
Pollard v. Geo Grp., Inc., 607 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 4× “28 C.F.R. § 542.10 (b) (2002). It does not apply to individuals confined in "other non-federal facilities.”
Pollard v. the GEO Grp., Inc., 629 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 4× “28 C.F.R. § 542.10 (b) (2002). It does not apply to individuals confined in "other non-federal facilities.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 542.10(a) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 542.10(b) — 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.