28 C.F.R. § 551.115

Recreation

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

(a) When consistent with institution security and good order, pretrial inmates may be allowed the opportunity to participate with convicted inmates in recreational activities. Staff shall ensure that inmates who do not participate in recreational activities with convicted inmates have access to other recreational activities.

(b) At a minimum, and except as noted in paragraph (d) of this section, staff shall provide the pretrial inmate with the following recreational opportunities:

(1) One hour daily of outside recreation, weather permitting; or

(2) Two hours daily of indoor recreation.

(c) Staff shall make recreation equipment available to the pretrial inmate including, but not limited to, physical exercise equipment, books, table games, and television.

(d) Staff shall provide the pretrial inmate housed in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation with exercise as provided by the Bureau of Prisons rules on Inmate Discipline. (See 28 CFR part 541, subpart B.)

(e) Provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section must be carried out unless compelling security or safety reasons dictate otherwise. Institution staff shall document these reasons.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Sanusi v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 100 F. App'x 49 (2d Cir. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sanusi v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 100 F. App'x 49 (2d Cir. 2004). “, 28 C.F.R. § 551.115 , and (2) whether a Bivens action is available, in view of his jailer's “private” status, and, if it is, whether an action lies against the individual officers who confined him, or also against Wackenhut itself, see Corr.”

Che-Adkins v. Mosley (E.D. Ky. 2022). “He also alleges a violation of 28 C.F.R. § 551.115 . As relief, Che-Adkins seeks monetary relief in the amount of $15 million and a “review” of the LCDC.”

Eastman v. Maloch (W.D. Ark. 2025). “Plaintiff alleges that this was a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that it violated the Federal Bureau of Prisons for Arkansas’s policies pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 551.115 . (ECF No. 7, at 4-5).”

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.