28 C.F.R. § 552.20

Purpose and scope

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

The Bureau of Prisons authorizes staff to use force only as a last alternative after all other reasonable efforts to resolve a situation have failed. When authorized, staff must use only that amount of force necessary to gain control of the inmate, to protect and ensure the safety of inmates, staff, and others, to prevent serious property damage and to ensure institution security and good order. Staff are authorized to apply physical restraints necessary to gain control of an inmate who appears to be dangerous because the inmate:

(a) Assaults another individual;

(b) Destroys government property;

(d) Inflicts injury upon self; or

(e) Becomes violent or displays signs of imminent violence.

This rule on application of restraints does not restrict the use of restraints in situations requiring precautionary restraints, particularly in the movement or transfer of inmates (e.g., the use of handcuffs in moving inmates to and from a cell in detention, escorting an inmate to a Special Housing Unit pending investigation, etc.). [59 FR 30469, June 13, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 39800, July 30, 1996]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Ziglar v. Abbasi, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3874 (2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3874 (2017). “See 28 C.F.R. § 552.20 (2016) (providing that prison staff may use force "only as a last alternative after all other reasonable efforts to resolve a situation have failed" and that staff may "use only that amount of force necessary to [ensure prison safety and security]"); § 552.”

Marcellas Hoffman v. Preston, 26 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2022). “5 See 28 C.F.R. §§ 552.20 (prohibiting the use of force except “as a last alternative after all other reasonable efforts to resolve a situation have failed”), 552.”

United States v. Ernest Lee Jennings, 991 F.2d 725 (11th Cir. 1993). “” 28 C.F.R. § 552.20 (c). Jennings was in an open area near the dining hall with many other inmates present; thus, the provision does not apply here.”

Kaufman v. United States, 84 F. Supp. 3d 519 (S.D.W. Va 2015). “Accordingly, 28 C.F.R. § 552.20 granted Officer Baynard the discretion to determine that force was appropriate and 28 C.”

David J. Widi v. United States et al., 2020 DNH 206 (D.N.H. 2020). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 552.20 ; see also PS 5566.06.”

Lewis v. United States (S.D.W. Va 2025). · cites it 4× “The PF&R finds that 28 C.F.R. § 552.20 applies in the context of excessive force claims.”

(PC) Barbour v. United States (E.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 3× “Under 28 C.F.R. § 552.20 , BOP authorizes staff to use 19 force only as a last alternative after all other reasonable efforts have failed.”

Widi, Jr. v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.N.H. 2020). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 552.20 ; see also PS 5566.06.”

Lewis v. United States (S.D.W. Va 2025). · cites it 3× “The PF&R finds that 28 C.F.R. § 552.20 applies in the context of excessive force claims.”

Martin v. United States (D. Colo. 2022). · cites it 2× “15 is “directed by” 28 C.F.R. § 552.20 . See [Doc. 30 at 13].”

Timothy Hatten v. Warden Bryan Bledsoe (3rd Cir. 2019). “§ 4042 (a)(2); see also 28 C.F.R. § 552.20 et seq. (relating to the use of force and restraints against inmates).”

Admassu Regassa v. C. Brininger (3rd Cir. 2021). “” See 28 C.F.R. § 552.20 ; see also BOP Program Statement 5566.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

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.