(a) The Community Corrections Manager (CCM), Warden, Regional Director, and General Counsel are responsible for the implementation and operation of the Administrative Remedy Program at the Community Corrections Center (CCC), institution, regional and Central Office levels, respectively, and shall:
(1) Establish procedures for receiving, recording, reviewing, investigating, and responding to Administrative Remedy Requests (Requests) or Appeals (Appeals) submitted by an inmate;
(2) Acknowledge receipt of a Request or Appeal by returning a receipt to the inmate;
(3) Conduct an investigation into each Request or Appeal;
(4) Respond to and sign all Requests or Appeals filed at their levels. At the regional level, signatory authority may be delegated to the Deputy Regional Director. At the Central Office level, signatory authority may be delegated to the National Inmate Appeals Administrator. Signatory authority extends to staff designated as acting in the capacities specified in this § 542.11, but may not be further delegated without the written approval of the General Counsel.
(b) Inmates have the responsibility to use this Program in good faith and in an honest and straightforward manner.
Notes of Decisions
Kent Alexander v. William Perrill & Luis Rivera, 916 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1990).
· cites it 3× “It does not relieve prison officials of their duty to investigate complaints by prisoners under 28 C.F.R. § 542.11 (a) or vest exclusive jurisdiction over the investigation of claims for foreign jail credits in the Central Office.”
In Re Bayside Prison Litig., 190 F. Supp. 2d 755 (D.N.J. 2002).
“19 (2002), which mandate the persons responsible for implementing Administrative Remedy Programs, 28 C.F.R. § 542.11 , and, provide for, inter alia, informal resolution, 28 C.”
Mazzanti v. Bogan, 866 F. Supp. 1029 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
“28 C.F.R. §§ 542.11 , 542.13, and 542.15.”
Muhammad v. Carlson, 739 F.2d 122 (3rd Cir. 1984).
“§§ 4001 , 4042 (1982); 28 C.F.R. § 542.11 . The narrow exception is the Bureau’s authority to award up to $2500 for meritorious claims asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”
Falcon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 852 F. Supp. 1413 (S.D. Ill. 1994).
“Availability of Administrative Review The three-tiered procedure for filing administrative actions is set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 542.11 . The purpose of the administrative remedy procedure, as stated in this section, is to set forth a “procedure through which an inmate may seek…”
Alexander v. Perrill, 836 F. Supp. 701 (D. Ariz. 1993).
“24 does not relieve prison officials of their duty to investigate complaints by prisoners under 28 C.F.R. § 542.11 (a) or vest exclusive jurisdiction over the investigation of claims for foreign jail credits in the Central Office.”
Bivens v. McGaugh (D. Colo. 2022).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 542.11 (a)(1), (3). To that end, the BOP provides a four-step administrative remedy program to 6 The court notes that Officer Blaike asserts essentially no substantive argument related to the BOP’s administrative remedy program.”
Little v. Inch (D.D.C. 2019).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 542.11 (a). Under this program, therefore, the BOP at least arguably had a duty to respond to Petitioner’s letters.”
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.