Disciplinary Procedures and Infractions

Disciplinary Procedures and Infractions in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) are governed by federal regulations in 28 C.F.R. part 541 and the BOP's Inmate Discipline Program. The system defines prohibited acts, outlines investigative and hearing procedures, and authorizes sanctions ranging from reprimands to loss of good conduct time and disciplinary segregation. Disciplinary findings can affect liberty interests such as good conduct time, custody level, program eligibility, and conditions of confinement, and therefore must follow due process standards established by Wolff v. McDonnell and the "some evidence" requirement of Superintendent v. Hill.

The disciplinary process begins when staff issue an incident report describing alleged misconduct. Cases are reviewed by a Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) and, for more serious charges, by a Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO). Individuals have specified procedural rights at each step, including notice, an opportunity to present evidence, a staff representative upon request, and a written statement of the decision and evidence relied upon.

How it works

The disciplinary system addresses misconduct through a standardized sequence: reporting, investigation, classification by severity, hearing, decision, and sanction. An incident report initiates the process and includes the date, time, place, and description of the alleged act; it is ordinarily delivered after the event and initial investigation. After review by the UDC, cases classified as High or Greatest severity are referred to the DHO for a formal hearing, while Moderate or Low cases may be resolved at the UDC level.

Process overview

• Incident report and investigation — Staff investigate and issue an incident report when they reasonably believe a prohibited act occurred; a lieutenant ordinarily conducts the investigation and advises the inmate of rights related to the disciplinary process.
• UDC review — The UDC reviews the report, hears from the inmate, determines responsibility, and imposes sanctions when authorized, or refers the matter to the DHO if severity or complexity requires.
• DHO hearing — For referred cases, a DHO conducts a hearing with procedural safeguards, considers evidence, resolves factual disputes, and issues a written decision with reasons and sanctions.

Prohibited acts and severity

BOP classifies misconduct into four severity levels: Greatest (100-series), High (200-series), Moderate (300-series), and Low (400-series). Each level includes specific codes and descriptions (e.g., 101–killing, 104–assault, 113–possession of drugs; 205–fighting; 305–possession of unauthorized item; 405–failure to follow safety regulations), with corresponding sanction ranges scaled to the seriousness of the conduct.

Rights and due process

Under Wolff v. McDonnell, when sanctions may affect liberty interests such as good conduct time, minimum due process includes: advance written notice of charges, a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses when not hazardous to institutional safety, assistance by a staff representative upon request, and a written statement of the evidence and reasons for the decision. The finding must be supported by some evidence in the record, per Superintendent v. Hill; federal courts do not reweigh credibility but review whether any evidence reasonably supports the decision. Due process protections are applied within the framework of reasonable prison regulation; additional liberty interests may arise only where sanctions impose an atypical and significant hardship in relation to ordinary prison life, per Sandin v. Conner.

Sanctions

Authorized sanctions include, among others: loss of privileges (commissary, visiting, telephone), impounding personal property, monetary restitution, extra duty, disciplinary segregation, and disallowance or forfeiture of good conduct time for certain severity levels. Sanctions must be proportionate to the offense category and may be combined as permitted by regulation and program statement tables. Placement in Special Housing Units (SHU) and disciplinary segregation follow additional procedural and review requirements to ensure humane conditions and continued access to basic services.

Evidence, representation, and hearings

At the DHO hearing, individuals may request a staff representative to assist with evidence gathering and presentation; they may call witnesses and present documents subject to safety and relevance limits. The DHO may consider documentary, testimonial, and physical evidence, including surveillance or laboratory reports, and must document the reasons for excluding evidence or witnesses when necessary for security or institutional order.

Appeals and administrative remedies

Findings and sanctions may be appealed through the BOP's Administrative Remedy Program, beginning with a BP‑10 to the Regional Director and a BP‑11 to the General Counsel after any institutional-level review required by policy. The Administrative Remedy Program is governed by 28 C.F.R. part 542 and BOP Program Statement 1330.18, which set filing deadlines, format, and routing for appeals of disciplinary decisions. Judicial review of good-time disallowance may be sought via habeas corpus where appropriate, with courts applying the Hill "some evidence" standard and Wolff procedural benchmarks.

Interaction with classification, programs, and good conduct time

Disciplinary findings can affect custody classification, program eligibility, and good conduct time awards. Certain sanctions may result in disallowance or forfeiture of good conduct time under BOP policy and regulations, which in turn affects projected release dates calculated under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). Program participation (e.g., work assignments, education, and some rehabilitative offerings) may be limited during disciplinary segregation or following certain High or Greatest severity findings, consistent with institutional safety requirements.

Criticisms and challenges

Observers have raised concerns about the breadth of prohibited acts, proportionality of sanctions, and the impact of disciplinary segregation on mental health; courts evaluate these concerns through due process analysis and Eighth Amendment standards, with relief available where sanctions impose atypical and significant hardships or where procedures deviate from Wolff and Hill. Policy reforms and litigation often focus on notice adequacy, access to witnesses, and written justification standards to ensure transparency and fairness.

Background and authority

The BOP's disciplinary authority derives from statute and regulation and is implemented via Program Statements that provide operational detail to staff and incarcerated persons. 28 C.F.R. part 541 codifies the disciplinary severity scale, procedures for UDC and DHO hearings, and available sanctions; BOP Program Statement 5270.09 operationalizes these requirements across institutions, with related policies addressing special housing, evidence handling, and appeals.

See also

• Federal Bureau of Prisons
• Inmate Discipline Program
• Administrative Remedy Program
• First Step Act
• Overview of Incarcerated Persons' Rights

External links

• 28 C.F.R. Part 541 — Inmate Discipline and Special Housing Units
• 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 — Prohibited acts and severity scale
• 28 C.F.R. § 541.5 — Incident report
• 28 C.F.R. § 541.7 — Unit Discipline Committee
• 28 C.F.R. § 541.8 — Discipline Hearing Officer
• 28 C.F.R. § 541.21 — Special Housing Units
• 28 C.F.R. § 541.26 — Review of placement in the SHU
• 28 C.F.R. Part 542 — Administrative Remedy
• BOP Program Statement 5270.09 — Inmate Discipline Program (PDF)
• BOP Program Statement 1330.18 — Administrative Remedy Program (PDF)
• Wolff v. McDonnell — Oyez
• Superintendent v. Hill — Oyez
• Sandin v. Conner — Oyez