User:Eastlaw/Discipline in the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Discipline in the Federal Bureau of Prisons is regulated by the U.S. Code, by court precedent, by the Code of Federal Regulations, and by Program Statements. Major cases are handled by Discipline Hearing Officers who must complete DHO Training prior to entry to the position and pass the DHO Certification test. There is also a Unit Discipline Committee certification that must be completed within three months of appointment to a correctional counselor or unit manager position. The UDC is usually composed of those two officers who make decisions by consensus.

The Code of Federal Regulations Part 541 sets forth punishable offenses, their punishments, and disciplinary hearing procedures within the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Program Statement 5270.09 provides further interpretations of that Part. There are four series of disciplinary offenses, with the 100 series being the most severe offenses (such as killing) and the 400 series being the least severe. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill that due process required that prison disciplinary decisions to revoke good-time credits must be supported by "some evidence". Only a modicum of evidence is required, though. The rules state "The DHO’s decision will be based on at least some facts and, if there is conflicting evidence, on the greater weight of the evidence." The evidentiary standard “greater weight of the evidence” refers to the strength of the evidence, not to its quantity or to the number of witnesses testifying.

The Special Investigative Services department in federal prisons often relies on confidential informants (defined as a non-staff person who provides staff, usually at the person’s initiation, with information about the commission of an offense or about misconduct, and whose identity must be protected for personal safety) to provide tips about illicit activity. The accused has no recognized right in prison discipline proceedings to learn the identity of the informant or to cross-examine him. Policy states that the prisoner will be informed of the CI’s testimony "to the extent it will not jeopardize institution security, at the DHO’s discretion." A separate report, not available to the accused, is made by the DHO in cases where some aspects of the situation are deemed to be too sensitive to be revealed. This information can include, for example, CIs' identities and any information that might tend to reveal the CIs' identities, such as information on the CIs' reliability. Policy states, "Uncorroborated confidential information from a single informant is insufficient as the sole basis for a finding, unless the circumstances of the incident and the knowledge possessed by the informant are convincing enough to show that the information must be reliable."

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that before a federal prisoner can appeal his case to court, he must exhaust all of his administrative remedies. This means that after the punishment is imposed, the prisoner must appeal and be turned down (or ignored) by every level of appeal within the FBOP. The three levels of appeal are the Warden, the Regional Director, and the General Counsel, although if the DHO imposed the sentence, the case skips the first level and goes straight to the Regional Director. The decision-maker at each level is allowed to take a certain number of days to respond, which can be extended. In addition, the first step of the process is to receive the UDC or DHO report. In the case of UDC proceedings, the UDC must hear the case within five business days and provide a written copy of the disposition by close of business the next work day. In the case of DHO proceedings, there is no maximum number of work days before the DHO hearing, and a written copy of the disposition must be provided "ordinarily within 15 work days of the decision." Due to the delays inherent in the process, and the possibility of multiple remands back to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer or Unit Disciplinary Committee, it can sometimes take more than a year to exhaust administrative remedies. In the meantime, the issue may become partly or completely moot; for example, a punishment of 40 days in disciplinary segregation will usually be served before the DHO hears the case and appeal is made and responded to by the Regional Director.