§ 95.240. Inmate disciplinary procedures.
The following are the minimum requirements applicable to inmate disciplinary procedures:
(1) Written local policy must identify a disciplinary process that provides clear notice of prohibited behavior and consistently applied sanctions for violations of prison rules. Disciplinary procedures governing inmate rule violations must address the following:
(i) Rules.
(ii) Minor and major infractions.
(iii) Criminal offenses.
(iv) Disciplinary reports.
(v) Prehearing actions.
(vi) Prehearing detention.
(vii) Appeal of disciplinary decisions.
(2) Written local policy must identify violations of prison rules that are designated as a major infraction, a minor infraction or those not rising to the level of a major or minor infraction.
(i) A major infraction involves a grievous loss and requires use of a hearing procedure for resolution. Major infractions include:
(A) Violations that may result in disciplinary detention or administrative segregation.
(B) Violations for which punishment may tend to increase an inmate’s sentence, such as extending parole eligibility.
(C) Violations that may result in forfeiture, such as loss of earned time.
(D) Violations that may be referred for criminal prosecution.
(ii) A minor infraction charge may be resolved without a hearing procedure and without the imposition of serious penalties. Minor infractions do not violate any State or Federal statutes and may be resolved informally by reporting staff.
(3) Written local policy must provide that discipline for a minor infraction may not be imposed unless a written statement as to the rule violated is prepared and a person not involved in the rule violation reviews the statement and makes a decision as to guilt.
(4) Written local policy must provide that discipline for a major infraction may not be imposed unless the inmate has been informed of the offense charged in writing, has had an opportunity to present a defense and has been found guilty of the charge by an impartial party or board designated by the prison administrator. Findings of guilt or innocence must be expressed in writing and based on information presented. Written findings of guilt must state the reasons for the finding.
(5) Written local policy must provide that disciplinary charges and written findings relative to a major infraction be recorded and made a permanent part of an inmate’s prison file.
(6) Written local policy must provide that disciplinary sanctions imposed after a finding of guilt for a major infraction may include loss of privileges, segregation or other sanctions as set forth in written local policy.
(7) Written local policy may allow for informal resolution of rule infractions not rising to the level of a major or minor infraction. Participation by an inmate in informal resolution of a rule infraction shall be on a voluntary basis only.
(8) Written local policy must provide that when an inmate in disciplinary status is deprived of any usual authorized items or activity, a report of the action is to be made to the prison administrator. If an inmate in disciplinary status uses food or food service equipment in a manner that is hazardous to self, staff or other inmates, an alternative meal may be provided, upon the approval of the prison administrator or designee and responsible health care provider.
(9) Written local policy must provide that the imposition of discipline not violate an inmate’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Authority The provisions of this § 95.240 amended under section 506 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 186); and section 3(3) and (4) of the act of December 27, 1965 (P. L. 1237, No. 502) (61 P. S. § 460.3(3) and (4)).
Source The provisions of this § 95.240 readopted May 18, 1979, 9 Pa.B. 1619; amended February 18, 2000, effective February 19, 2000, 30 Pa.B. 866; amended October 10, 2008, effective October 13, 2009, 38 Pa.B. 5627. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (336807) to (336808).
Notes of Decisions Administrative Segregation
There is no provision in these regulations for a hearing to challenge a warden’s decision to place a prisoner in administrative segregation. Therefore, because the warden had unchecked power to place plaintiff in administrative segregation, the state did not create a liberty interest and plaintiff had no due process right to a hearing concerning placement and retention in administrative segregation. Williams v. Sweeney, 882 F. Supp. 1520 (E. D. Pa. 1995).
Prisoner’s Rights
The regulations governing discipline and proper procedures to be followed before disciplinary action can be imposed gave rise to a nondiscretionary State-created liberty interest, and failure to provide a hearing on plaintiff’s confinement as part of a punishment constituted a deprivation of due process rights guaranteed by the U. S. CONST. amend. XIV. Todaro v. Bowman, 872 F.2d 43 (3rd. Cir. (Pa) 1989).
Cross References This section cited in 37 Pa. Code § 95.220b (relating to scope).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
