28 C.F.R. § 549.43

Transfer for psychiatric or psychological examination

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

The Bureau may transfer an inmate to a suitable facility for psychiatric or psychological examination to determine whether hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment is needed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: United States v. McAllister, 969 F. Supp. 1200 (D. Minnesota 1997).
United States v. McAllister, 969 F. Supp. 1200 (D. Minnesota 1997). · cites it 27× “For the reasons hereinafter stated, it is recommended that the District Court conclude that it does have jurisdiction to review the decision of the mental health administrator at this time, and that acting within its appropriate scope of review, the District Court should reverse…”
United States v. Loughner, 672 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 10× “The district court likewise denied Loughner's emergency motion to enjoin the involuntary medication decision of September 15, 2011.”
United States v. Jesse Gutierrez, 443 F. App'x 898 (5th Cir. 2011). · cites it 20× “28 C.F.R. § 549.43 (a)(3).1 Here, the Harper hearing was conducted by Dr.”
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). · cites it 2× “, 28 CFR § 549.43 (2002); cf. 18 U. S. C. § 4246 .”
United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “To the extent these issues were either discussed during oral argument or raised by the parties in their briefs, all of which is now part of the public record, those matters are addressed openly in this opinion.”
United States v. Morgan, 193 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 1999). · cites it 19× “Although the determination that Morgan should be forcibly medicated was reached in the context of an administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) regulation 28 C.F.R. § 549.43 (1998), Morgan challenges the validity of that determination by…”
Miskovitch v. Hostoffer, 721 F. Supp. 2d 389 (W.D. Pa. 2010). · cites it 5× “28 CFR § 549.43 . This regulation provides for notice, an administrative hearing, adjudication by a psychiatrist not involved in treating the inmate and the right to have a staff representative of the inmate.”
United States v. Ralph E. Brandon, 158 F.3d 947 (6th Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “” FMC Rochester further reminded the district court that the medication would be administered only after the hospital held an administrative hearing pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 549.43 , and upon direction from the district court.”
United States v. Keeven, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (E.D. Mo. 2000). · cites it 14× “This matter is before the court for review of defendant, Laura Keeven's, appeal of the results of an administrative hearing held pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 549.43 regarding the issue of defendant's involuntary medication because she is a danger to herself and others and in order to…”
United States v. Humphreys, 148 F. Supp. 2d 949 (D.S.D. 2001). · cites it 8× “The procedures for this hearing are outlined in 28 C.F.R. § 549.43 . In summary, section 549.”
United States v. Horne, 955 F. Supp. 1141 (D. Minnesota 1997). · cites it 12× “See 28 C.F.R. § 549.43 (“[I]n order to administer treatment or psychotropic medication on an involuntary basis, further administrative due process procedures, as specified in this section, must be provided to the inmate.”
United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 446 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2006). · cites it 10× “Because BOP never pursued the mandatory administrative procedures required by 28 CFR § 549.43 , this Court orders that Defendant be remanded into the custody of the Attorney General for the purpose of following the required administrative procedures for involuntary psychiatric…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 549.43(a)(4) — 1 case
United States v. McAllister, 969 F. Supp. 1200 (D. Minnesota 1997). “For the reasons hereinafter stated, it is recommended that the District Court conclude that it does have jurisdiction to review the decision of the mental health administrator at this time, and that acting within its appropriate scope of review, the District Court should reverse…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 549.43(a)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Weston, 55 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 1999).
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.