C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER V—BUREAU OF PRISONS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT › PART 542—ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY › Subpart B—Administrative Remedy Program

28 C.F.R. § 542.14

Initial filing

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Submission. The deadline for completion of informal resolution and submission of a formal written Administrative Remedy Request, on the appropriate form (BP-9), is 20 calendar days following the date on which the basis for the Request occurred.

(b) Extension. Where the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay, an extension in filing time may be allowed. In general, valid reason for delay means a situation which prevented the inmate from submitting the request within the established time frame. Valid reasons for delay include the following: an extended period in-transit during which the inmate was separated from documents needed to prepare the Request or Appeal; an extended period of time during which the inmate was physically incapable of preparing a Request or Appeal; an unusually long period taken for informal resolution attempts; indication by an inmate, verified by staff, that a response to the inmate's request for copies of dispositions requested under § 542.19 of this part was delayed.

(c) Form. (1) The inmate shall obtain the appropriate form from CCC staff or institution staff (ordinarily, the correctional counselor).

(2) The inmate shall place a single complaint or a reasonable number of closely related issues on the form. If the inmate includes on a single form multiple unrelated issues, the submission shall be rejected and returned without response, and the inmate shall be advised to use a separate form for each unrelated issue. For DHO and UDC appeals, each separate incident report number must be appealed on a separate form.

(3) The inmate shall complete the form with all requested identifying information and shall state the complaint in the space provided on the form. If more space is needed, the inmate may use up to one letter-size (8 1/2” by 11”) continuation page. The inmate must provide an additional copy of any continuation page. The inmate must submit one copy of supporting exhibits. Exhibits will not be returned with the response. Because copies of exhibits must be filed for any appeal (see § 542.15(b)(3)), the inmate is encouraged to retain a copy of all exhibits for his or her personal records.

(4) The inmate shall date and sign the Request and submit it to the institution staff member designated to receive such Requests (ordinarily a correctional counselor). CCC inmates may mail their Requests to the CCM.

(d) Exceptions to initial filing at institution—(1) Sensitive issues. If the inmate reasonably believes the issue is sensitive and the inmate's safety or well-being would be placed in danger if the Request became known at the institution, the inmate may submit the Request directly to the appropriate Regional Director. The inmate shall clearly mark “Sensitive” upon the Request and explain, in writing, the reason for not submitting the Request at the institution. If the Regional Administrative Remedy Coordinator agrees that the Request is sensitive, the Request shall be accepted. Otherwise, the Request will not be accepted, and the inmate shall be advised in writing of that determination, without a return of the Request. The inmate may pursue the matter by submitting an Administrative Remedy Request locally to the Warden. The Warden shall allow a reasonable extension of time for such a resubmission.

(2) DHO appeals. DHO appeals shall be submitted initially to the Regional Director for the region where the inmate is currently located.

(3) Control Unit appeals. Appeals related to Executive Panel Reviews of Control Unit placement shall be submitted directly to the General Counsel.

(4) Controlled housing status appeals. Appeals related to the Regional Director's review of controlled housing status placement may be filed directly with the General Counsel.

(5) Other requests for formal review of decisions not originating from the Warden. Other than the exceptions listed above, formal administrative remedy requests regarding initial decisions that did not originate with the Warden, or his/her staff, may be initially filed with the Bureau office which made the original decision, and appealed directly to the General Counsel.

[61 FR 88, Jan. 2, 1996, as amended at 75 FR 34626, June 18, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 747 cases (512 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Michael Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michael Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 8× “28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (c)(2); see id. § 542.”
Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 10× “28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (a). An extension of time is available upon a showing of valid reason for delay.”
Karamo B. Kaba v. E.A. Stepp, Mickal E. Laird, Dave Benson, & Joseph Yonkman, 458 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2006). · cites it 6× “28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (a). Where the inmate can demonstrate a “valid reason for delay,” an extension of time may be warranted.”
Curtis L. Dale v. Harley G. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (a); see McCoy v. Gilbert, 270 F.”
Harlan Clement Gibbs 19446039 v. Bureau of Prison Off., 986 F. Supp. 941 (D. Maryland 1997). · cites it 4× “28 C.F.R. § 542.14 . If the prisoner is not satisfied with the warden’s response he may appeal to the Regional Director.”
Yu Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (a). If “not satisfied with the Warden’s response,” they “may submit an Appeal on the appropriate form (BP-10) to the appropriate Regional Director within 20 calendar days of the date the Warden signed the response.”
Rush v. Samuels, 82 F. Supp. 3d 470 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 14× “¶ 26; see 28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (a), for submission to the Warden of the institution where he is incarcerated, see 28 C.”
Patel v. Fleming, 415 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “In this case, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his alleged exposure to secondhand smoke because he did not submit a written Administrative Remedy Request within twenty days of the date on which the basis for the Request occurred, as required by…”
Pyles v. Nwaobasi, 829 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2016). “” 28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (b). It includes as examples “an extended period in-transit during which the inmate was separated from [necessary] documents” and a verified showing that “a response to the inmate’s request for copies” of certain documents “was delayed.”
E. Robert Nigro, Jr. v. John Sullivan, Warden, 40 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “” 28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (1993). The receipt “[a]cknow-ledge[s] receipt [by the General Counsel] of a[n] .”
Paul Butts v. Marcus Martin, 877 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2017). “See 28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (c)(2) (“The inmate shall place a single cpmplaint or a reasonable number of closely related issues on the [BP-9] form.”
Anthony McCoy v. James R. Gilbert, Frederick H. Aper, David Poggemoeller, Herman S. Nelson & Robert Zachary, 270 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (b). Although McCoy never did file such a complaint, he notes that the law that existed on the date of his assault did not mandate the exhaustion procedure.”
Show all 747 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a) — 12 cases
Anthony Livingston v. Sherman, 714 F. App'x 106 (3rd Cir. 2017).
Islas v. Derr (D. Haw. 2022).
Munoz v. Derr (D. Haw. 2022).
Londono v. Derr (D. Haw. 2022).
Yanagihara v. Derr (D. Haw. 2023).
— 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(b) — 3 cases
Redfern v. Barraza (M.D. Penn. 2023).
Rolle v. Peters (W.D. Pa. 2024).
Rolle v. Underwood (W.D. Pa. 2024).
— 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(c)(2) — 2 cases
Michael Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2018). “28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (c)(2); see id. § 542.”
Michael Rinaldi v. United States (3rd Cir. 2018).
— 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d) — 1 case
Rush v. Samuels, 82 F. Supp. 3d 470 (D.D.C. 2015). “¶ 26; see 28 C.F.R. § 542.14 (a), for submission to the Warden of the institution where he is incarcerated, see 28 C.”
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.