28 C.F.R. § 549.43
Transfer for psychiatric or psychological examination
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).
Dylan Scott Corral v. Warden, Fmc Devens (D. Mass. 2026). “BOP’s procedures were initially listed at 28 C.F.R. 549.43, but in 2011, the regulation was clarified and renumbered as 28 C.”
Hubbard v. Ramos (N.D. Cal. 2022). “Nor does the federal regulation pursuant to which the plaintiff was initially medicated in 16 Loughner, the former version of 28 C.F.R. § 549.43 , define how long an emergency can last— 17 only that it constitutes a situation in which “a person is suffering from a mental illness…”
Johnson v. Dept. of Health, 236 A.3d 574 (Md. 2020). “28 C.F.R. § 549.43 (1993). After Sell, BOP changed its regulation.”
United States v. Joseph Brooks, 750 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014). “1 On December 16, *1093 2011, Brooks was admitted to the U.”
United States v. David Mann, 532 F. App'x 481 (5th Cir. 2013). “28 C.F.R. § 549.43 (1992).4 Under the 1992 regulations, before the government could forcibly medicate an inmate on either dangerousness or trial competency grounds, it was required to provide him with notice of an impending hearing and “the reasons for the medication proposal.”
United States v. Loughner, 672 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2012). “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). “28 C.F.R. § 549.43 (a)(3).1 Here, the Harper hearing was conducted by Dr.”
Miskovitch v. Hostoffer, 721 F. Supp. 2d 389 (W.D. Pa. 2010). “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. Daaniyal Muhammad, 398 F. App'x 848 (3rd Cir. 2010). “2d 178 (1990), or 28 C.F.R. § 549.43 . United States v. Grape, 549 F.”
United States v. Fabela, 666 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (D. Ariz. 2009). “2d 178 (1990) and 28 C.F.R. 549.43 to determine whether involuntary medication was appropriate.”
Bush v. Van Buren, 310 F. App'x 661 (5th Cir. 2009). “See 28 C.F.R. § 549.43 . The United States District Court for the District of Maryland ordered that Bush be forcibly medicated in connection with her pending criminal case; therefore, the proper forum for Bush’s challenge is her pending appeal of that order to the United States…”
United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2008). “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.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 549.43(a)(4) — 1 case
United States v. McAllister, 969 F. Supp. 1200 (D. Minnesota 1997).
— 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.