1. (a) An inmate does not have a right to be housed in a particular facility or in a particular area within a facility.
2. (b) Confinement in a restricted housing unit (RHU), other than under procedures established for inmate discipline, will not be done for punitive purposes. The Department will maintain written procedures which describe the reasons for housing an inmate in the RHU and require due process in accordance and with established principles of law for an inmate who is housed in the RHU. Inmates confined in the RHU will be reviewed periodically by facility staff.

Authority

The provisions of this § 93.11 amended under section 506 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 186).

Source

The provisions of this § 93.11 adopted October 22, 1971, effective October 23, 1971, 1 Pa.B. 2017; amended March 9, 1973, effective March 10, 1973, 3 Pa.B. 447; amended February 17, 1984, effective February 18, 1984, 14 Pa.B. 534; amended December 21, 2001, effective December 22, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 6932. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (257004) to (257005).

Notes of Decisions

Administrative Confinement

In this civil rights action, plaintiff, inmate, did not allege denial of due process in connection with assignment to administrative confinement. In fact, the inmate indicated that a hearing was held where the inmate’s rationale for returning to the general prisoner population was expressed. Plaintiff’s assertion that a favorable response to the appeals was not received failed to support that there was denial of an opportunity for appellate review. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be satisfied with the decision of prison officials, made pursuant to applicable prison regulations, where the inmate must retain in administrative confinement for the inmate’s own protection. Oden v. Caison, 892 F. Supp. 111 (E. D. Pa. 1995).

Authority

The Department of Corrections could not delegate authority to the State Police to make promises on an inmate housing assignment. The State Police were not authorized agents of the Department of Corrections. Fay v. Ryan, 818 F.Supp. 882 (W. D. Pa. 1993).

General Comment

New prison restraint policy, which mandated behind-the-back handcuffing for all out-of-cell movements of all death-sentenced inmates, did not violate regulation, where the regulation does not address the use of restraints. Commonwealth ex rel. Buehl v. Price, 705 A.2d 933 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); appeal denied 727 A.2d 1123 (Pa. 1998).

An inmate does not have a right under the U. S. Constitution of Pennsylvania State laws or regulations to any specific custody status. Oden v. Caison, 892 F. Supp. 111 (E. D. 1995).

Section 93.11(b) provides that the Department of Corrections will require due process in accordance with the law for an inmate housed in a restricted housing unit. In order to show a due process violation under the regulation, a petitioner must allege that the Department failed to comply with every step of the required review process. Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).