18 U.S.C. § 4081
Classification and treatment of prisoners
The Federal penal and correctional institutions shall be so planned and limited in size as to facilitate the development of an integrated system which will assure the proper classification and segregation of Federal prisoners according to the nature of the offenses committed, the character and mental condition of the prisoners, and such other factors as should be considered in providing an individualized system of discipline, care, and treatment of the persons committed to such institutions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Moody v. Daggett
Moody v. Daggett (1976)
“Congress has given federal prison officials full discretion to control these conditions of confinement, 18 U. S. C. § 4081 , and petitioner has no legitimate statutory or constitutional entitlement sufficient to invoke due process.”
Cohen v. United States (1998)
“The first of these is 18 U.S.C § 4081, which provides in relevant part that prisoners should be classified: according to the nature of the offenses committed, the character and mental condition of the prisoners, and such other factors as should be considered in provid-ih'g an…”
United States v. Marco Alfonso Ramirez (1977)
“( 18 U.S.C. § 4081 .) Whether or not a convict is subjected to a regimen that could be classified as hard labor depends, not on the offense which gave rise to his conviction, but on the training, disciplinary, or control needs of the individual, the facilities available in the…”
Louis Wolfish v. Honorable Edward Levi (1978)
“See also 18 U S C § 4081 (1970) 14 . In contrast, Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc.”
Nimrod T. Solomon v. Charles L. Benson, Warden (1977)
“Fano, for example, no due process protections were required upon the discretionary transfer of state prisoners to a substantially less agreeable prison, even where that transfer visited a “grievous loss” upon the inmate. The same is true of prisoner classification and…”
Albert Garza v. Harold G. Miller, Warden (1982)
““Congress has given federal prison officials full discretion to control these conditions of confinement, 18 U.S.C. § 4081 , and petitioner has no legitimate statutory or constitutional entitlement to invoke due process.”
Tim Kramer v. James E. Donald (2008)
“2d 236 (1976) (prison officials have full discretion to control conditions of confinement, including prisoner classification) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 4081 ). Kramer’s due process claim against Nix is foreclosed by our decision in Sultenfuss v.”
McMillan v. Wiley (2011)
“18 U.S.C. § 4081 . Considering this language, facility classifications are clearly committed to the discretion of the BOP, and thus, I have no meaningful standard upon which to judge the appropriateness of those decisions.”
Douglas Glynn Payton, Administrator of the Estate of Sheryl Lynn Payton, Deceased v. The United States of America (1982)
“18 U.S.C. § 4081 (1976). If a sentence of more than one year in prison is imposed, a panel of two hearing examiners normally conducts an initial parole hearing within 120 days of the offender’s arrival at a Bureau of Prisons institution.”
Fox v. Lappin (2006)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 4081 . Classification of a prisoner is required under 28 C.”
Moriani v. Hunter (1978)
“Plaintiff invokes jurisdiction of this court under 18 U.S.C. § 4081 , 28 U.S.C. § 1346 , 28 U.”
Auckland Holmes v. United States Board of Parole and United States Bureau of Prisons (1976)
“18 U.S.C. § 4081 . Classification and treatment of prisoners The Federal penal and correctional institutions shall be so planned and limited in size as to facilitate the development of an integrated system which will assure the proper classification and segregation of Federal…”
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.