March 29, 2024
Legislative and Correctional Issues Branch, Office of the General Counsel
Bureau of Prisons
320 First Street NW
Washington, DC 20534
Re: Docket No. BOP–1171–P—Inmate Discipline Program: Disciplinary Segregation andProhibited Act Code Changes
On behalf of the Due Process Institute and Justice Action Network, we write to you regarding theproposed rule, Inmate Discipline Program: Disciplinary Segregation and Prohibited Act CodeChanges (Docket No. BOP–1171–P / RIN 1120–AB71). Specifically, we are concerned about theproposed “[a]ddition of code 294, regarding unauthorized use of social media.”As the proposed rule states, “We propose to create a new High Severity Level prohibited act code(294) for accessing, using, or maintaining social media, or directing others to establish or
maintain social media accounts on the inmate’s behalf (including, but not limited to thefollowing: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, etc. or any successor). In contrast toproposed code 194, code 294 acts will not involve commission or aid in the commission of any
criminal act or any Greatest category prohibited act.”
The proposed language would unjustly punish people incarcerated at Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
facilities using the harshest possible means for communication on social media, without regard towhether the communication has a legitimate legal or personal purpose. We believe that a full andtotal ban would be excessive in its own right, but a ban with significant sanctions for violations is
an extreme policy. This rule is especially concerning when proposed amid increasing
documented instances of abuse, including rape and unconstitutionally inhumane conditions suchas substandard medical care and more at BOP facilities. Further, victims of this abuse have faced
retaliation or cover-ups by prison personnel or other incarcerated people, and can thus feel achilling effect when reporting issues through the normal channels. There are several examples.
● FCI Atlanta: An investigation conducted by the Senate Homeland Security andGovernmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found several major
issues, including unsanitary conditions, sexual violence, and attempts to cover up theproblems in the prison.1● FCI Coleman: At least 12 women have alleged that correctional officers sexually abused
them while they were incarcerated at the facility.2
12https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/us/politics/atlanta-federal-prisons-corruption.html
https://reason.com/2023/09/03/i-knew-they-were-scumbags/

● FCI Dublin: Sixty-three lawsuits have been filed related to this facility, known as “therape club.”3 As of July 2023, seven former employees had been convicted of sexual abuseagainst women incarcerated in the prison.4 In March 2024, the warden of the prison wasremoved “in the wake of allegations that his staff had retaliated against an inmate who
testified in January in a lawsuit against the prison.”5● FCI Tallahassee: Incarcerated individuals were served moldy bread and faced unsanitaryconditions.6
There are other examples of documented sexual abuse and disturbing conditions in
BOP-controlled facilities7 that clearly illustrate the need for significant reforms to ensure
incarcerated people are housed in a manner that recognizes their basic rights of safety anddignity. The proposed rule sets these systemic problems aside and focuses on overly broad andsevere punishment of incarcerated people for simply contacting someone outside of the prison
walls.
Many individuals who are incarcerated have family and friends who are concerned about theirwell-being while in prison. Not only do we know that maintaining these contacts is vital forincarcerated peoples’ mental health, considering the likelihood of abuse and poor conditions,these concerns are justifiable. Social media provides a way for incarcerated individuals, families,
and friends to raise awareness of violence, sexual abuse, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, andmore inside the walls of federal prison facilities. Social media also provides a means to advocate
for an incarcerated individual beyond the conditions inside of prisons, which may include
ongoing court proceedings, appeals, and clemency or pardon petitions.
We understand that the BOP is concerned about the use of social media by incarcerated people tocoordinate violent acts inside or outside prisons. The safety of BOP personnel and incarcerated
people is and must remain a priority. However, social media communication can be used as
evidence in an investigation aiming to hold people accountable for inciting violence without awholesale ban on the use of social media with severe consequences for violations. With this rule,
the BOP is using a chainsaw when a scalpel would do.
With news headlines dominated by criminal investigations on abuse in prisons, a Department ofJustice Inspector General report on preventable deaths in prisons, and several congressionaloversight hearings focusing on these matters, including the language cited above in the proposed
rule is a step backward. BOP Director Colette Peters has long stated that she believes inincreasing transparency at the BOP, and has said she wants to humanize and normalize life inprison. Including this language in the proposed rule runs contrary to these views. We oppose the3https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-06/federal-womens-prison-in-california-fostered-culture-of-abuse
https://www.ktvu.com/news/8-correctional-officers-now-charged-with-sex-abuse-at-fci-dublin-7-found-guilty
5
https://apnews.com/article/federal-prisons-dublin-sexual-abuse-fbi-d59870c859d58e1ab2b158392adaee57
6
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/southeast/inspectors-unsafe-florida-prison/
7
https://apnews.com/article/federal-prisons-5be574b4103a2f5420e0d9da2daf5c9c4inclusion of this language on social media use and urge the BOP to remove it from the proposed
rule.
Sincerely,
Jason Pye
Director, Rule of Law Initiatives
Due Process InstituteJC Hendrickson
Director of Federal Affairs
Justice Action Network