Prison and Jail Grievance Policies:
Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey

Michigan Law Prison Information Project
Priyah Kaul (J.D., 2015), Greer Donley (J.D., 2014),
Ben Cavataro (J.D., 2014), Anelisa Benavides (J.D., 2014),
Jessica Kincaid (J.D., 2016) & Joseph Chatham (B.A., 2015)

October 18, 2015

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies:
Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary & Recommendations ......................................................................... 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
I.

Scope and Remedies ..................................................................................................... 5
A.

Grievable Matters .................................................................................................. 5

B.

Sexual Abuse, Health Care and Emergencies ....................................................... 6

C.

Remedies ............................................................................................................... 9

II.

Access ..................................................................................................................... 11
A.

Initiating a Grievance .......................................................................................... 11

B.

Procedure: Forms and Errors .............................................................................. 12

C.

Single-Subject Rule ............................................................................................. 14

D.

Third-Party Assistance ........................................................................................ 16

III.

Appeals and Notice ................................................................................................. 17

IV.

Time Limits ............................................................................................................. 19

A.

Time Limits for the Prisoner ............................................................................... 19

B.

Time Limits for Correctional Officials ............................................................... 23

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 25
Appendix A. Methodology............................................................................................. 26
1.

Collection of Data ............................................................................................... 26

2.

Methodological Limitations ................................................................................ 29

Appendix B: Statistical Data ............................................................................................. 30
Appendix C: Coding ......................................................................................................... 30

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
This report summarizes information gathered by analysis of prisoner grievance policies from 53
Departments of Correction (for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, each state, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico), and the nation’s 12 largest metropolitan jails. Each policy itself—
obtained via the web or by Freedom of Information Act requests—is available at
http://clearinghouse.net/policy. They exhibit significant variation. It is this variation that allows
us to present the recommendations below. Where we observed particular grievance rules that
seemed troubling—unfair, especially onerous for prisoners, etc.—and those rules are unusual, we
recommend the more common practice. Other recommendations work the converse way: where
some jurisdictions have unusual but very appealing rules, we highlight those as promising
practices for others to follow. In total, we make 20 recommendations:
General policy features:
1. Grievance policies should clearly define what is and is not grievable.
2. Given the sensitivity and urgency of complaints related to sexual abuse, health care,
and emergencies, policies should specifically address these types of grievances.
3. Policies should expressly address remedies, and should allow, at a minimum,
remedies of institutional change and restitution and/or restoration.
Access:
4. Jurisdictions that require informal attempts at resolution should not require faceto-face communication between grievants and staff about whom they are
complaining.
5. For formal grievances, jurisdictions should avoid the burdens of face-to-face
submission by using secure submission boxes or submission via mail.
6. Jurisdictions should streamline their paperwork processes, allowing use of
grievance forms; jurisdictions should avoid having too many different forms whose
use is mandatory.
7. Prisoners should be able to readily access forms in common areas of the prison, as
well as through case workers or counselors.
8. Policies should protect access to the grievance system for prisoners who make goodfaith procedural errors.
9. Jurisdictions should provide ways segregated prisoners can access the grievance
process.
10. Jurisdictions that impose single-subject rules should provide reasonable safeguards,
such as permitting prisoners to refile grievances rejected as covering too many
topics, providing time extensions in order for prisoners to refile, and not counting
the denied grievance towards a maximum number of grievances per prisoner.
11. Jurisdictions should permit third-party assistance in all cases.

Page 1

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Appeals and notice
12. Appeals should be decided by a committee and/or an individual not associated with
the Department of Corrections.
13. Policies should require officials to provide notification to prisoners at each stage of
the grievance process.
14. Policies should require officials to provide written reasons for denials or rejections
of grievances at each stage of the grievance process.
Time limits:
15. Prisoners should be afforded at least 10 days to initiate the grievance process.
16. Prisoners should receive exceptions to time-bars for good cause.
17. Policies should explicitly provide that in the case of an ongoing grievance, the clock
begins to run at the time of the most recent incident.
18. Policies should start the clock for subsequent steps when the prisoner receives
notification of the decision on the prior step.
19. Policies should require officials to provide initial responses within 30 or fewer days.
20. Policies should require officials to provide initial responses within 72 hours for
emergency grievances.
Our report aims to increase the transparency of prison and jail grievance processes. More
importantly, we hope that highlighting the positive policies that are actually in place in various
jurisdictions leads to reform. Grievance processes are critical for prisoners seeking redress for
legitimate complaints. Outcomes may also determine a prisoner’s ability to seek justice in the
federal courts. We urge all correctional systems to evaluate their own grievance policies and
work towards creating a more fair and effective system.

Page 2

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey

INTRODUCTION
In January 2014, students from the University of Michigan Law School, advised by
Professor Margo Schlanger, formed the Michigan Law Prison Information Project. The goal of
the project was to gather and analyze prison grievance policies from prisons and jails across the
country. By making these documents available to the public, we hoped to increase the
transparency of prison practice, draw attention to both good and bad policies, and initiate a
discussion of important issues. This report and the new online Michigan Law Policy
Clearinghouse present the results of that effort. 1 The policies themselves, along with this report
and a coding of the policies under 20 different variables, are posted at
http://clearinghouse.net/policy. 2
Prison grievance policies are critical to defining and implementing the rights and
responsibilities of individuals within the prison system. In addition, prison grievance polices
impact the ability of prisoners to access the federal courts. In Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81
(2006), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 3
requires prisoners to properly exhaust all available administrative remedies before they may
access federal courts. The Court identified three policy rationales for this exhaustion
requirement: (1) agency autonomy, (2) attrition of frivolous lawsuits, and (3) development of an
administrative record. According to the Court, the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement avoids
unwarranted federal court interference with the administration of prisons.
Given the court gatekeeper function that the PLRA, as interpreted by the Woodford
Court, assigns to internal grievance processes, it is essential these processes be fair and that they
not needlessly cut off prisoners’ constitutional right of access to federal courts. The complexity
of prison grievance policies play a large role in when, and whether, prisoners can file lawsuits.
For example, if final administrative resolution of a prisoner’s grievance does not occur until
years after the relevant incident, a prisoner may lose steam before he or she is even eligible to
file suit. Furthermore, the Court in Woodford interpreted the PLRA’s exhaustion provision not
merely to postpone, but to bar, lawsuits if prisoners fail to comply with any procedural elements
of a grievance policy. Under this interpretation, even good faith errors with regard to minor
procedural requirements can render a prisoner’s purported harm unredressable both
administratively and judicially. For example, if a grievance policy requires a prisoner to file a
grievance within three days of the relevant incident, a prisoner who misses the three-day
deadline is barred from raising the complaint both in the prison grievance system and federal
courts. In the wake of Woodford, some predicted that this exhaustion requirement might create
perverse incentives for prisons to make grievance processes more burdensome, thereby

1

We would like to thank Michigan Law School’s empirical research fund for its support of the Michigan
Law Prison Information Project.
2

In addition to obtaining grievance policies from each institution, we requested prisoner handbooks and
policies addressing prisoner mail. These materials are also posted at the Policy Clearinghouse site, but are not
discussed in this report.
3

Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (codified in relevant part at 42 U.S.C. § 1997e).

Page 3

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
frustrating prisoners’ ability to vindicate their rights both in and out of court. 4 One goal of this
report is to evaluate the complexity and onerousness of prison grievance policies after Woodford.
We sought grievance policies from 65 jurisdictions, including all 50 state departments of
corrections, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the 12
largest metropolitan jail systems. 5 Puerto Rico did not respond to multiple requests for
information; Alabama informed us that the state does not have a general grievance policy. All
other jurisdictions provided us with their grievance policies or had policies that were available
online. We analyzed these policies using 20 variables. 6 For each topic we examine, we identify
preferred practices and opportunities for reform. It is the variation among jurisdictions that
allows us to present those recommendations. Some of the recommendations relate to outliers. If
some jurisdictions have particular grievance rules that seemed troubling to us—unfair, especially
onerous for prisoners, etc.—and those rules are unusual, we recommend bringing the relevant
rule in line with more common practice. Other recommendations work the converse way: if some
jurisdictions have unusual but very appealing rules, we highlight those as promising practices.
This report divides the topic into four parts: In Part I, we examine the scope and remedies
covered by grievance policies; Part II deals with access; Part III with internal appeals; and Part
IV with some of the details of time limits.

4

See Margo Schlanger & Giovanna Shay, Preserving the Rule of Law in America’s Jails and Prisons: The
Case for Amending the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 11 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 139, 149-50 (2009).
5

These 12 jail systems are: Broward County (FL), Philadelphia (PA), New York City (NY), Cook County
(IL), Miami-Dade County (FL), San Diego County (CA), Los Angeles County (CA), Maricopa County (AZ),
Orange County (CA), San Bernardino (CA), Dallas County (TX), and Harris County (TX).
6

These 20 variables were: date promulgated; references to administrative codes or statutes; type of policy;
name of policy; citations to external standards; citations to separate procedures for specialized grievances; steps;
URL, if available online; time limits for prisoner; time limits for prison; punishments for grievances found frivolous,
excessive, or abusive; definition of “grievance”; definition of non-grievable issues; remedies provided; procedural
requirements; third party filings; emergency grievance procedures; single-subject rules; guarantees of written
responses from prison; and length of policy. The coding of the policies under these 20 variables is available at
http://clearinghouse.net/policy.

Page 4

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey

I.

SCOPE AND REMEDIES
A.

GRIEVABLE MATTERS

“[C]omplaints and grievances include, but
are not limited to, any and all claims
seeking monetary, injunctive, declaratory,
or any other form of relief authorized by
law and by way of illustration, includes
actions pertaining to conditions of
confinement, personal injuries, medical
malpractice, time computations, even
though urged as a writ of habeas corpus, or
challenges to rules, regulations, policies, or
statutes, including grievances such as
offender requests for accommodations
under the ADA and for complaints of
sexual abused under the PREA.”
Louisiana
Department Regulation
No. B-05-005
“Grievance: A complaint filed by an
inmate related to any aspect of institutional
life or conditions of confinement which
personally affects the inmate grievant.”
Arizona
Department Order 802

Whether and how a policy defines
grievable matters will significantly affect a
prisoner’s ability to seek remedies for alleged
problems. A clear definition contributes to a more
effective and manageable policy. Lack of clarity
creates a horizontal equity problem, because
similarly situated grievants may not be treated the
same by different staff members reviewing
grievances. Moreover, lack of clarity may lead a
prisoner plaintiff to believe that he can file
directly in federal district court; if a matter is not
grievable, no “administrative remedy [is]
available,” under the PLRA. If the jurisdiction
successfully persuades the court that this was an
error, the prisoner will be out of luck—it will be
too late to grieve, and the federal lawsuit will be
procedurally barred. Thus fairness requires our
first recommendation:
Recommendation 1: Grievance policies should
clearly define what is and is not grievable.
Just ten jurisdictions currently omit to define
either grievable or non-grievable matters. (Federal
BOP, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey,
Los Angeles County, Maricopa County, MiamiDade County, San Bernardino County).

Note that where jurisdictions do offer definitions of grievable and non-grievable matters, those
definitions vary greatly. Several policies list specific categories of grievances (e.g., Missouri:
classification, activities/privileges, due process, harassment, medical, property, use of force, and
other, all broken down into lists of three to fifteen subcategories each; Oklahoma: discrimination,
classification, complaint against staff, conditions of confinement, disciplinary process, legal,
medical, property, records/sentence administration, and religion). Idaho’s policy provides one of
the most extensive and detailed lists of grievance categories, but with the caveat that the
categories are used for “administrative tracking purposes and are not for determining inclusion or
exclusion criteria.” Several policies are broad, but provide some restrictions on the scope of a
grievance (e.g., Delaware: “substance of application of a policy or practice; any action toward an
inmate by staff or other inmates; any condition or incident within the institution that affects the
Grievant”; Georgia: “any condition, policy, procedure, or action or lack thereof that affects the
offender personally”; Michigan: “alleged violations of policy or procedure or unsatisfactory
conditions of confinement which directly affect the grievant, including alleged violations of this
policy and related procedures”). Other policies use less specific language to define grievances
(e.g., West Virginia: “any matter concerning prison life”; Illinois: “incidents, problems, or
complaints”).

Page 5

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Definitions of non-grievable matters tend to be more specific than definitions of grievable
matters. Most policies expressly exclude matters the prison or jail has no authority or control. In
most cases, matters handled by external institutions are non-grievable, such as parole decisions
and matters litigated or appealed in court (e.g., Michigan, Washington, Wyoming, Cook
County). Several policies also exclude matters that have a separate internal or administrative
review process, such as classification decisions, work and program eligibility and assignments,
medical charge disputes, and housing assignments (e.g., Alaska, Tennessee, Utah, Washington
DC).
Some of this variation is summarized is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1: EXAMPLES OF VARIATION IN GRIEVABILITY
Jurisdictions in which classification
is non-grievable (17)
Utah, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
Wyoming, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, North
Dakota, Washington DC, Massachusetts,
Montana, Nebraska, Alaska, Colorado, New
Mexico, Broward County

Jurisdictions in which classification
is grievable (5)
Oklahoma, New York City, Philadelphia, South
Carolina,* Orange County, San Diego County
* Classification decisions directly affecting
inmate’s custody level are grievable; classification
matters related to institutional and security
assignments made at reception and evaluation
centers, institutional job assignments, cell or
dormitory assignments, and waiver of classification
challenges are non-grievable, subject to certain
exceptions.

Jurisdictions in which mail-related
issues are non-grievable (3)
Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee

Jurisdictions in which mail-related
issues are grievable (2)
Idaho, New Mexico,† San Diego County
† Decisions regarding mail are grievable, but
“[m]atters involving the loss or delay of mail by the
U.S. Postal Service or other carriers” are nongrievable

Thus it is clear that there are a number of reasonable approaches employed by different
jurisdictions. Institutions seeking to exclude certain types of grievances should do so expressly
(e.g. Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, Rhode Island, Washington, Miami-Dade).

B.

SEXUAL ABUSE, HEALTH CARE AND EMERGENCIES

Sexual abuse, health care, and emergencies each raise special issues for a wellfunctioning grievance system. Recommendation 2: Given the sensitivity and urgency
of complaints related to sexual abuse, health care, and emergencies, policies should
specifically address these types of grievances.

Page 6

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Institutions may effectively address these grievances either through specific
provisions in a general policy or by directing grievants to separate policies focused solely
on these issues. The provisions of the policies in question are often—appropriately—
exceptions to standard grievance procedures. For example, policies may allow prisoners
with sexual abuse, health care, or emergency grievances to skip informal procedures or
receive an immediate response (e.g., Virginia, Florida, Washington). However, policies
that create separate processes for sexual abuse, health care, or emergency grievances
must take account of resulting risks. For example, where there are separate processes, it
may be difficult for a prisoner to figure out which procedure to apply. Errors committed
as a result of filing a grievance under the wrong process should not be penalized if made
in good faith. A brief analysis of sexual abuse, healthcare, and emergency grievance
policies follows:
•

Sexual Abuse: At least eighteen policies refer directly to the Prison Rape Elimination
Act of 2003 (PREA) (Federal BOP, California, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
West Virginia, Wyoming, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota,
New Jersey, Arizona, Maricopa County, San Bernardino County). PREA was aimed at
curbing prison sexual abuse through a “zero tolerance” policy. It called for informationgathering and the development of national standards to prevent sexual violence in prison.
Among other mandates, standards passed pursuant to PREA require that correctional
agencies not impose a time limit on prison grievances alleging sexual abuse, allow third
parties to initiate sexual abuse grievances if a prisoner consents, not require prisoners to
seek “informal” resolution of sexual abuse complaints before submitting a formal request
for remedies, and ensure prisoners are not required to submit a grievance to the alleged
abuser. 7 Even policies that do not expressly cite to PREA often incorporate its mandates.
For example, Oregon’s separate grievance policy for sexual assault allegations does not
set a time limit for filing sexual assault grievances and allows prisoners to submit
grievances directly to an officer-in-charge when there is a substantial risk of imminent
sexual abuse.

•

Health Care: Like sexual abuse allegations, health care grievances are addressed in a
variety of ways. A number of states have separate procedures for health care grievances,
although this is less common than in the case of sexual assault/PREA grievances. Many
policies also have a separate review or appeal process for health care grievances that
involves outside health care services (e.g., Pennsylvania: appeals are made to the Bureau
of Health Care Services; Idaho: review authority lies with a Healthcare Services
Administrator; Texas: processing of grievances goes through the Health Authority).

•

Emergencies: The definitions of “emergency grievance” vary widely (e.g.,
Massachusetts: “A grievance processed in an expedited manner to resolve an issue in
which a delay may cause substantial risk of personal injury or other damages.”;
Delaware: “An issue that concerns matter which under regular time limits would subject
the inmate to a substantial risk of personal, physical, or psychological harm.”). Although
the time limits placed on prisoners to file emergency grievances varies from no limit to

7

28 CFR § 115 (2013).

Page 7

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
20 days after the incident, most prisons provide for an immediate physical examination of
the prisoner or process the grievance in an expedited fashion.
TABLE 2: SEXUAL ABUSE, HEALTH CARE, AND EMERGENCY GRIEVANCES
Jurisdiction

Sexual Abuse

Health Care

Emergency

PRISONS
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia



×
×








×






×















×

×































×


×



×

Page 8





×










Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Jurisdiction
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Sexual Abuse

Health Care

Emergency











JAILS
Broward County, FL

Cook County, IL
Dallas County, TX
Harris County, TX

Los Angeles County, CA

Maricopa County, AZ
Miami-Dade County, FL

New York City, NY

Orange County, CA
Philadelphia, PA

San Bernardino, CA
San Diego, CA
: Addressed expressly within general grievance policy
×: Separate policy

C.



×














REMEDIES

The remedies available via prison and jail grievance systems vary widely. Some policies
do not address possible remedies for successful grievances at all, while others spell out possible
remedies in significant detail. In general, state DOCs have more developed remedial policies
than jail systems.
Many states address remedies for successful claims in general terms (e.g., Cook County’s
policy referenced “assigning a remedy”) or in terms of a process rather than a result (e.g.,
California merely defines of remedy as “a process or means to address an issue or correct a
wrong.”). The treatment of monetary compensation, restitution, and replacement of property—
and how administrative grievance/remedy procedures interact with separate tort claims
procedures for these—varies significantly. Some systems specifically provide for restoration or
restitution for personal property (e.g., Colorado: “restoration of or restitution for property”;
Montana: “Replacement, restoration of, or restitution for personal property”; North Carolina:
“restoration or restitution for personal property”). Among policies that do mention restoration or
restitution, several specifically require a showing of negligence by staff. This includes South
Carolina (“fair value” in money “for items lost or destroyed when willful negligence is proven”)
and New Mexico (“[i]n no event will replacement or monetary compensation be awarded
without a showing of negligence or willful misconduct on the part of Department employees.”).
Other systems’ policies state that monetary or tort damages are not available (Hawaii, Georgia).

Page 9

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
FIGURE 1: COMMON REMEDIES

Number of Jurisdictions

40
31
30
18

20

15

Prisons

12

10

10

Jails

6
0

2

0

0

0
Restitution,
Compensation

Corrective
Measures

Institutional
Change

Apologies, Not Addressed
Assurances

Change to institutional policy and practice is a remedy also addressed by a number of
policies. Remedial options included in the policies in Montana (“modification of institutional
operational procedure or practice”), South Dakota (“[m]odification of institution operational
memorandums or DOC policy”); Connecticut (“changes in written policies and procedures or in
their interpretation or application”); New Mexico (“change of policies, procedures or practices”);
and Washington (“change in a local or department policy or practice”) are illustrative.
Most systems that address remedies include a residuary clause, using phrases such as
“may include” or stating that “other remedies as appropriate” may be provided, suggesting that
the remedies listed are nonexclusive. Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina, New Mexico,
Connecticut, Colorado, Kansas, and Texas are among the states using such language. Others
simply create a list without stating explicitly whether it is intended to be an exclusive.
Surprisingly few policies discuss apologies or assurances that a wrong will not reoccur as
an available remedy. Among the few to reference this inexpensive remedy are South Dakota
(“[a]ssurance deprivation will not reoccur”); Colorado (“assurance that abuse will not recur”);
Arizona (“apologies”); Montana (“assurance that deprivation of necessary care or other abuse
should not recur”); and Nebraska (“[v]erbal or written apologies by staff members.”).
However, two-thirds of the policies do not address remedies at all (e.g., Federal BOP,
Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, North Dakota, Mississippi, New Jersey, Vermont,
West Virginia, New York City, Philadelphia, San Bernardino, San Diego). At least two
jurisdictions address remedies only in the negative, listing what remedies will not be provided
(Hawaii: tort remedies and money damages; Utah: “disciplinary or other personnel action against
department employees, reassignment of department employees,” and “monetary damages beyond
reimbursement for actual out-of-pocket losses”).
Recommendation 3: Policies should expressly address remedies, and should allow,
at a minimum, remedies of institutional change and restitution and/or restoration.

Page 10

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Including at least some non-exhaustive examples of available remedies seems to be a
necessary component of a reasonable grievance policy. A list of remedies provides guidance to
both prisoners and staff and is an indication that the grievance process can provide some
meaningful outcome. Among policies that address remedies, the most common remedy is
institutional change (Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, Wyoming). Twelve jurisdictions also expressly provide the remedy of
restitution and/or restoration (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming); this accordingly
appears to be a fair and administrable remedy.

II. ACCESS
A.

INITIATING A GRIEVANCE

Most jurisdictions’ grievance procedures begin with a requirement that the prisoner seek
“informal resolution.” Informal resolution provisions typically either encourage or require
prisoners to attempt resolution by requesting a conversation with staff (e.g., Federal BOP,
Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota). Other policies require the prisoner and
relevant staff member to agree to an “identifiable solution or plan to resolve the complaint”
(Vermont) or require the prisoner to “demonstrate that he/she has made a good faith effort to
resolve the issue informally” (Virginia). If a prisoner is dissatisfied with the informal resolution,
many policies require staff members to sign a form stating that the issue was discussed without
resolution (e.g., Maine, South Carolina, New York City).
Informal resolution of grievances may be efficient from the institutional perspective, but
the requirement raises serious concerns about retaliation. If staff members become aware of
allegations against them, they may apply implicit or explicit coercive or retaliatory pressure on
the prisoner filing the grievance. Some policies attempt to mitigate this effect by exempting
prisoners from informal resolution in cases of abuse (e.g. Pennsylvania), but fear of retaliation
may be neary as serious in non-abuse contexts. Even if policies include anti-retaliation
provisions, fear of retaliation may deter prisoners from filing legitimate grievances.
Recommendation 4: Jurisdictions that require informal attempts at resolution
should not require face-to-face communication between grievants and staff about whom
they are complaining.
Informal resolution should not be required at all for accusations of abuse. Even when
informal resolution is appropriate, prisoners could be allowed to informally discuss grievances
with counselors or caseworkers. These individuals should be qualified professionals committed
to confidentiality and tasked with helping prisoners identify opportunities to address their
grievances. Five jurisdictions use this approach (Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, North Dakota, Cook
County), and others should consider it.
Recommendation 5: For formal grievances, jurisdictions should avoid the burdens
of face-to-face submission by using secure submission boxes or submission via mail.
When a prisoner moves to the “formal grievance” stage, policies typically specify
submission procedures. For instance, many policies require grievance forms to be submitted in a
general submission box located on prison grounds (e.g., Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico, Harris

Page 11

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
County). Some policies, however, require that the prisoner submit the form in person to a
specified staff member (e.g., Colorado: “Offenders shall file Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3
grievances with their case manager/CPO, or other DOC employees designated by the
administrative head”; Oklahoma: “the offender may… submit the grievance form… to the
reviewing authority”; Pennsylvania: “An inmate must submit his/her grievance to the Facility
Grievance Coordinator”).
Under other policies, however (e.g., South Carolina), prisoners must themselves
determine which staff member has authority to address their grievances and must then submit the
appropriate paperwork it to that person directly. This requirement may prove extremely
burdensome for prisoners. For example, a prisoner may have to discuss a private grievance with
several members of the staff in order to find the relevant staff member. Given restrictions on
prisoners’ freedom of movement, it may take a prisoner a good deal of time to find the relevant
official, risking expiration of the time allowed to file the grievance. Institutions can easily avoid
the burdens of face-to-face submission by using secure grievance boxes (Alaska, Connecticut,
DC, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Washington, Harris
County, New York City, Orange County, Philadelphia, San Diego). Several institutions use mail
for submission (Federal BOP, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Wyoming, Harris County), which is a reasonable alternative as long as mail is not costprohibitive for prisoners.

B.

PROCEDURE: FORMS AND ERRORS

Procedural requirements are necessary to a well-functioning grievance process; however,
many policies impose complicated and burdensome procedural requirements that may, in effect,
bar prisoners from seeking redress for legitimate grievances.
The vast majority of states require prisoners to fill out specified forms in order to
successfully claim their grievances. Often, each step in the grievance process involves a different
form. Some jurisdictions also have different forms for different kinds of grievances (e.g.,
healthcare grievances may have their own form). Given that the overwhelming majority of
institutions require completion of forms, forms likely improve administrability. Forms may also
be a helpful tool to guide prisoners through the filing process, particularly if the forms are
standardized and prompt grievants to provide necessary information. However, the use of many
different forms may multiply obstacles for prisoners seeking redress. Most states reference three
or fewer forms in their grievance policies (Federal BOP, California, Colorado, DC, Florida,
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Broward County, LA County, Maricopa County, Miami-Dade, New
York City, Orange County, Philadelphia, San Bernardino County, San Diego County). Outliers,
like Arizona, reference up to seven different forms; this seems like too many.
Recommendation 6: Jurisdictions should streamline their paperwork processes,
allowing use of grievance forms; jurisdictions should avoid having too many different
forms whose use is mandatory.
Certain prisons have all forms readily available for prisoners in areas like the library or
cafeteria, while other prisons require that the prisoner request each form they might need from
various staff members. In the case of Nebraska, the initial form and the appeal form must be

Page 12

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
obtained from different prison staff members. Generally speaking, jurisdictions that require
prisoners to request the forms disincentivize the filing of grievances by creating a gatekeeper.
Recommendation 7: Prisoners should be able to readily access forms in common
areas of the prison, as well as through case workers or counselors.
Nevada employs a model approach, making forms available in housing units and through
unit staff, case workers, or the Institutional Law Library.
Some prisons do not require the
completion of specific forms; instead, they
Examples of Procedural Requirements
impose other requirements for the submission
• “Only one staple may be used to affix the
of grievance paperwork. Grievance policies
pages together. The inmate may not tear,
may require prisoners to use a particular type
fold, or affix tape to the forms…” (West
of paper or include specific information in the
Virginia)
complaint. The standards can be exacting. For
• The grievance “must avoid the use of legal
example, West Virginia requires that the
terminology.” (Indiana)
“inmate may only attach one 8.5 x 11 inch
page with writing on a single side. Only one
• “Inmate must sign at each stage to accept
staple may be used to affix the pages together.
the decision.” (Delaware)
The inmate may not tear, fold, or affix tape to
• “The prisoner shall… state the specific
the forms, except that the forms may be
remedy requested.” (Maine)
folded and placed into a number 10
• “[T]he inmate shall ensure that the form is
envelope.” Some jurisdictions, like Harris
legible.” (Florida)
County, are less strict, requiring the grievance
to be made “in writing; on a sheet(s) of plain
paper; on any reasonable, tangible medium.”
Not requiring the completion of specific forms could be less demanding and remove gatekeeper
issues. However, without a form prompting prisoners to provide specific information, they may
be more likely to make inadvertent procedural errors in filing grievances.
Policies generally require the paperwork to include a clear and concise description of the
facts giving rise to the grievance, including relevant dates. Policies also typically require
prisoners to identify themselves according to name, unit, and bed number, as well as to identify
other involved parties, such as perpetrators or witnesses (e.g. Illinois: “The grievance shall
contain factual details regarding each aspect of the offender's complaint, including what
happened, when, where, and the name of each person who is the subject of or who is otherwise
involved in the complaint”; Pennsylvania: “The statement of facts shall include: the date,
approximate time and location of the event(s) that gave rise to the grievance; identification of the
individuals directly involved in the event(s); any claims that the inmate wishes to make
concerning violations of Department directives, regulations, court orders, or other law; any relief
being sought by inmate.”). Significantly, several states allow prisoners to file grievances even
when the names of perpetrators are not known (e.g., Illinois “This provision does not preclude an
offender from filing a grievance when the names of individuals are not known, but the offender
must include as much descriptive information about the individual as possible”; Ohio: “In the
event an inmate does not know the identity of the personnel involved, a ʺJohn/Jane Doeʺ
complaint may be filed”). A few policies include unique specifications about the content of the
grievance (e.g. Indiana: “It must explain how the situation or incident affects the offender.”).

Page 13

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Furthermore, nearly all grievance policies specify that the paperwork must be completed
legibly and signed by the prisoner. Indiana also requires that the complaint “avoid the use of
legal terminology.” Some policies expressly require that the grievance be written in English,
which raises obvious difficulties for illiterate or non-English-speaking prisoners (e.g., Indiana). 8
Several policies state that they will return grievance requests that are difficult to read or
understand (e.g. Idaho: “A Grievance/Appeal Form that is difficult to read or understand may be
returned to the offender with instruction to make it legible or clearly explain the issue”).
Paperwork-related requirements increase the risk of good-faith errors. Several
jurisdictions are unforgiving of such errors, dismissing without appeal any complaints that fail to
meet procedural requirements (e.g., Maine, Mississippi). In these jurisdictions, a reasonable and
minor error may end a grievance process before it really begins. A number of institutions protect
prisoners who make good-faith errors in filing the wrong form. Such provisions may grant
prisoners a 48-hour extension (Montana) or assume the original submission date once a corrected
form is resubmitted (New York City).
Whatever the error, it’s important that good-faith and errors not undermine the
availability of redress for real problems:
Recommendation 8: Policies should protect access to the grievance system for
prisoners who make good-faith procedural errors.
An important concern with regards to completion and submission of grievances is how to
ensure access to paperwork and submission boxes for prisoners segregated from the general
population. Ensuring that segregated prisoners have access to the grievance system is vital; these
prisoners are in a particularly vulnerable position often subject to conditions that may prompt the
filing of grievances. Policies that do directly address this issue generally require staff members to
distribute and collect grievance forms at particular times (e.g., Indiana, Kansas). This is a
reasonable approach, as long as the distribution and collection occurs with sufficient frequency.
Other jurisdictions should further investigate best practices for allowing segregated prisoners to
access grievance processes. Whatever the method chosen, Recommendation 9: Jurisdictions
should provide ways segregated prisoners can access the grievance process.

C.

SINGLE-SUBJECT RULE

Over 60% of jurisdictions have some type
of single-subject rule. Single-subject rules
generally preclude prisoners from raising multiple
complaints in a single grievance filing (e.g.,
Florida: if “the grievance addresses more than
one issue or complaint” it will be returned to the
inmate “without a response on the merits”;
Montana: “If the inmate includes multiple
unrelated issues on a single form, the [grievance
coordinator] will reject it and return it to the
8

“Inmates shall place a single complaint
or reasonable number of closely related
issues on one grievance form. Grievances
containing multiple unrelated issues shall
be accepted, however, supervisors may
reject multiple grievances that are
difficult to investigate together.”
San Bernardino County
Detention Bureau Standard Operating
Procedure Section 12.200

See generally Megan Grandinetti, Comment, Ensuring Access to Justice for Non-English-Speaking
Criminal Defendants: Denial of Access to Other-Language Legal Materials or Assistance as an Extraordinary
Circumstance for Equitable Tolling, 38 SETON HALL L. REV. 1479 (2008).

Page 14

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
inmate without a response.”). Most policies with a single-subject rule permit staff to dismiss
complaints for failure to comply (e.g., Maine, Mississippi). These decisions often cannot be
appealed, because they are not decisions on the merits of the grievance. Most policies also do not
expressly state whether or not a prisoner can amend and re-file the grievance if it is rejected on
these grounds. In addition, several policies categorize procedural violations, including violations
of the single-subject rule, as misuse of the system, subject to punishment (e.g., New Jersey,
Missouri).
Although single-subject rules may appear harmless, they warrant special attention due to
the potential challenges they present for prisoners. First, single-subject rules are vague, and
therefore allow for arbitrary enforcement and fail to provide fair notice. The facts of Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) illustrate the problems that might arise for
prisoners under a single-subject rule. In Lopez, a prisoner at Corcoran State Prison filed a §1983
action against the prison administrators and staff, alleging that the defendants (1) knowingly
placed him in a cell with a dangerous prisoner who subsequently injured him; (2) provided him
inadequate medical care while he was recovering from his injury; (3) denied him outdoor
exercise during his recovery;
and (4) deliberately
FIGURE 2: SINGLE-SUBJECT RULE
mistreated him during a bus
transfer between prisons, in
45
addition to other claims not
39
40
considered on appeal. Under
California’s single-subject
35
rule, prisoners “are limited to
30
one issue or related set of
25
Prisons
issues per Inmate/Parolee
Appeal form submitted…
Jails
20
Filings of appeals combining
15
12
unrelated issues shall be
rejected and returned to the
10
7
5
appellant by the appeals
5
coordinator with an
0
explanation that the issues are
Single-Subject Rule No Single-Subject
deemed unrelated and may
Rule
only be submitted
separately.” It is unclear how
such a rule would apply to
these facts. California’s policy, like other policies with single-subject rules, offers no guidance.
Moreover, prison or jail administrators are granted considerable discretion to determine whether
to reject a grievance on these grounds.
Second, strict enforcement of single-subject rules causes grievances to go unredressed.
Many single-subject rules are paired with limits on the number of grievances a prisoner can file
in a time period (or have open at any one time). If prisoners must divide issues into separate
grievances, they will reach the prescribed limit much more quickly than if they could include
multiple issues on one grievance form. For example, if the prisoner in Lopez had been limited to
having three grievances open at a time, he would have to choose which issues to pursue first. The
excluded issues might be barred later, because of the passage of time.

Page 15

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Single-subject rules do not appear to be necessary to effective and administrable
grievance policies. In fact, nearly one-third of jurisdictions do not have such a rule.
Recommendation 10: Jurisdictions that impose single-subject rules should provide
reasonable safeguards, such as permitting prisoners to refile grievances rejected as
covering too many topics, providing time extensions in order for prisoners to refile, and not
counting the denied grievance towards a maximum number of grievances per prisoner.

D.

THIRD-PARTY ASSISTANCE

Procedural requirements raise questions about who can complete grievance forms. Nearly
one-third of all policies ban third-party assistance (Alaska, Arkansas, DC, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Harris County, Miami-Dade, New York City, Orange County). But
several policies do permit
such assistance under
FIGURE 3: THIRD PARTY ASSISTANCE (PRISONS ONLY)
certain conditions (e.g.,
Florida: “Third parties,
including fellow inmates,
20
staff members, family
16
15
members, attorneys and
15
outside advocates, shall be
10
permitted to assist inmates
9
10
in filing grievances
6
alleging sexual abuse”;
4
5
Washington D.C.: “The
1
1
1
0
Warden shall ensure that
0
non-English speaking
Prohibited Permitted
Not
Permitted Permitted
inmates, inmates who
addressed
only for only in case
cannot read or are
sexual abuse of prisoner
grievances disability
otherwise impaired
(physically or mentally),
receive assistance in order
to understand and access
the inmate grievance procedures.”). Furthermore, some policies dictate that only certain prison
staff can assist the prisoner in completing the paperwork, precluding other prisoners from
assisting (e.g., Illinois: “Staff assistance shall be available as requested by those offenders who
cannot prepare their grievances unaided as determined by institutional staff”; New Jersey:
“Under no circumstances will another inmate complete or deposit another inmates form(s) in the
Inmate Remedy System Box. If assistance is required, the inmate must contact his/her unit Social
Worker.”). The Federal BOP takes a relatively broad approach, permitting other inmates, staff,
family members, and attorneys to assist grievants in preparing grievances. The policy also
requires wardens to “ensure that assistance is available for inmates who are illiterate, disabled, or
who are not functionally literate in English.”
Policies that prohibit third-party assistance create serious limitations for illiterate, nonEnglish speaking, and special-needs prisoners. Grievance policies should account for these
challenges in order to provide fair and non-discriminatory processes. Ten jurisdictions have
general policies allowing third-party assistance (Federal BOP, California, Florida, Georgia,

Page 16

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Los Angeles County). Permitting thirdparty assistance in all cases seems attractive and is likely feasible due to its use in these ten
jurisdictions. Institutions may be concerned about falsification or the emergence of “jailhouse
lawyers” who could pose a threat to institutional authority, but procedural safeguards can reduce
the likelihood of such occurrences. For example, institutions could require prisoners to actually
file their own grievances, even when they receive assistance in completing paperwork (Federal
BOP, Georgia, Minnesota, Montana, New York). Recommendation 11: Jurisdictions should
permit third-party assistance in all cases.

III. APPEALS AND NOTICE
The steps of grievance policies range from simple to highly complex. In general, prison policies
are more elaborate than jail policies, although the New York City Jail policy is a notable
exception to this observation. Most procedures can be broken down into three general steps:
informal resolution, filing of a formal grievance, and appeal.
Grievance Procedure Steps:
Highlights from Three Jurisdictions
Alaska
(1) Informal resolution: Verbal communication with staff member
(2) Formal grievance: Request and complete two forms
(3) Appeal: Complete form to appeal facility Manager’s/Director's grievance decision
District of Columbia
(1) Informal resolution: Submit complaint via grievance box
(2) Formal grievance: Submit form via grievance box
(3) Appeal to Deputy Director
(4) Final appeal to Dept. of Corrections
Maricopa County
(1) Formal grievance: Submit form to shift supervisor
(2) Appeal using External Grievance Form

Informal Resolution:
As already described, despite its name, informal resolution can be quite formal, requiring
prisoners to complete forms and document their attempts to resolve the dispute. Most informal
resolution provisions either encourage or require prisoners to attempt resolution by requesting a
conversation with staff or fellow prisoners (e.g., Federal BOP, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Dakota). Other policies require the prisoner and relevant staff member to agree to
an “identifiable solution or plan to resolve the complaint” (Vermont) or require the prisoner to
“demonstrate that he/she has made a good faith effort to resolve the issue informally” (Virginia).
If a prisoner is dissatisfied with the informal resolution, many policies require staff members to
sign a form stating that the issue was discussed without resolution (e.g., South Carolina, Maine,
New York City).

Page 17

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey

FIGURE 4: INFORMAL RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
20
Number of Jurisdictions

3
15

2
6

10
16

14
5

Jails
Prisons

0
10

1

7

4
0
Discuss with Discuss with
Submit
prisoner or case manager paperwork
staff
or counselor

Other

None

Formal Grievances:
If the informal process breaks down or the prisoner finds the response unsatisfactory, the
prisoner is able to file a formal grievance. Depending on the jurisdiction, the formal grievance
process includes a number of steps with specific time limits and procedural requirements.
Prisoners must usually file paperwork with the institution through a prescribed method. A
designated official or panel will generally review the grievance and respond
Appeals:
Every policy includes some mechanism for appealing the outcome of the formal
grievance process. The appeal stage typically involves review by a higher level of administration
(e.g., Louisiana: appeals to the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections;
Oregon: appeals to Assistant Director or designee; South Dakota: appeals to the Secretary of
Corrections; Harris County: appeals to the Division Commander of the Administrative Services
Division). There may also be multiple levels of appeal. Furthermore, some, though not all,
policies require institutions to notify grievants in writing of final agency decisions.
When appeals are decided by someone inside the relevant Department of Corrections,
that obviously risks bias. Quite a few jurisdictions have confronted that problem and are now
requiring either a committee or an individual outside the corrections department to conduct the
review.
Recommendation 12: Appeals should be decided by a committee and/or an
individual not associated with the Department of Corrections.
Written notification of agency decisions is critical in order for prisoners to determine
whether they can or must take further actions. The vast majority of grievance policies expressly
state that institutions must provide grievants with written notification of institutional decisions.
Jurisdictions that do not provide notification at each step of the grievance process (Florida,

Page 18

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Idaho, Kentucky, Vermont) or do not address notification at all (Maryland, Mississippi, North
Dakota, Oregon, Dallas County) are outliers and should reform this aspect of their procedures:
Recommendation 13: Policies should require officials to provide notification to
prisoners at each stage of the grievance process.
Approximately half of all policies go one step further, requiring institutions to explain
their reasons for denying or rejecting grievances, at least at certain stages of the grievance
process (Federal BOP, Connecticut, DC, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, Wyoming, Broward County, Miami-Dade, New York City, Orange County,
Philadelphia, San Diego). All jurisdictions should adopt this common and common-sense
approach.
Recommendation 14: Policies should require officials to provide written reasons for
denials or rejections of grievances at each stage of the grievance process.

IV. TIME LIMITS
A.

TIME LIMITS FOR THE PRISONER

Most grievance policies establish time limits for filing initial informal or formal
grievances. These time limits are critically important for prisoners. If the time frame is too short,
a prisoner may lack adequate time to decide to file the grievance, obtain and complete the
required grievance forms, and submit the grievance forms in compliance with all procedural
requirements. Moreover, a prisoner may not have adequate time to discover that he or she has a
redressable grievance in the first place. The prisoner’s interests must be balanced with the
prison’s valid interest in addressing grievances before evidence becomes stale or irrelevant.
The shortest time frame requires prisoners to attempt informal resolution within two
business days of becoming aware of an issue, “unless prevented by circumstances beyond his/her
control or if the issue falls within the jurisdiction of the Internal Affairs Division…”
(Michigan). 9 At least two states require prisoners to take the initial grievance step within three
days (Nebraska: “the Informal Grievance Resolution Form must be filed within three calendar
days of the incident”; Oklahoma: “the offender must try to resolve the complaint by talking with
the affected staff, supervising employee or other appropriate staff within three days of the
incident”). The longest time frame for filing an initial grievance was 90 days (Louisiana: “a
request to the Warden shall be made in writing within a 90 day period after an incident has
occurred”). Five policies do not specify a time frame (Delaware, Washington DC, Dallas
County, Harris County, San Diego). For a comprehensive list of time limits for filing an initial
grievance, see Table 3.

9

Many policies include exceptions to the time limits, as Michigan’s policy does. Under Nevada’s policy,
for example, prisoners with issues regarding the prison’s authority and control have only ten days to file, while
complaints about personal property or alleged torts may be filed within six months.

Page 19

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Imposing a short time limit for prisoners to initiate the first step of the grievance process
is the easiest way for a prison to limit the accessibility of the process. Prisoners need adequate
time, especially in the first stage of the grievance process, to decide whether to file a grievance;
understand the grievance process, which may require reading a lengthy policy; obtain, complete,
and submit relevant forms; and contact necessary third parties, particularly if informal resolution
is required. Time limits of less than one week pose too high a hurdle for prisoners, particularly
when the first step of the grievance process is onerous and time-consuming. Although prisons
have an important interest in addressing grievances before evidence becomes stale or irrelevant,
this interest must be balanced with the interests of the grievant.
Recommendation 15: Prisoners should be afforded at least 10 days to initiate the
grievance process.
Of the 57 institutions that specify time limits for initial filings, 45 of them allow prisoners
to have 10 or more days (Federal BOP, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Cook County, LA
County, New York City, Orange County, Philadelphia, San Bernardino). The most common time
limit is 30 days—and this seems like a best practice.
The point at which the clock starts is as important as the number of days given to file.
Twenty-nine policies begin the clock at the time the relevant incident occurs (Federal BOP,
Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, LA County, Maricopa, Miami-Dade,
Orange County, Philadelphia, San Bernardino). Policies that start the clock at the time of the
incident fail to address the many situations in which prisoners could not or do not become aware
of grievances until after the time period expires. For example, a prisoner who receives poor
medical treatment may not experience the resulting physical pain until a significant amount of
time has passed. Similarly, a prisoner accusing a staff member of stealing personal property may
not realize the property is missing for some time. Several jurisdictions implement more
reasonable provisions. Five jurisdictions begin the clock when the incident occurs or when the
grievant becomes aware of the incident (Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Vermont), and two start the clock when the grievant becomes aware of the incident (Michigan,
Broward County).
The U.S. Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of equitable tolling in U.S. v. Wong,
575 U.S. __ (2015). In Wong, the Supreme Court held that equitable tolling is available in suits
against the government, meaning courts may pause the running of the statute of limitations when
a party has diligently pursued a claim but has missed a deadline due to extraordinary
circumstances. Grievance policies should reflect the Wong Court’s approach to equitable tolling.
Fourteen jurisdictions begin tolling the clock at the time the incident occurs but provide certain
exceptions (Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
New Jersey, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, Cook County, NYC). Illinois and Wisconsin, for
example, provide exceptions for good cause. Although these exceptions may not address all
circumstances in which a time-bar would be unfair, institutions should investigate
implementation of these alternatives.

Page 20

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Recommendation 16: Prisoners should receive exceptions to time-bars for good
cause.
At least four policies separately address tolling of the time limit for ongoing grievances
(Maine, Missouri, Tennessee, New York City). Maine’s exception is unusually harsh for
prisoners, requiring them to file within 15 days from the first occurrence of an ongoing violation.
Under this last approach, a prisoner who does not file a grievance within a certain amount of
time of the first instance of victimization is permanently prohibited from seeking redress. This
time-bar puts the perpetrator beyond the reach of the grievance system even when the wrong is
ongoing. Such a result should be untenable, and several jurisdictions (Missouri, Tennessee, New
York City) have express provisions that avoid this result, by providing that the clock starts at the
time of the latest incident.
Recommendation 17: Policies should explicitly provide that in the case of an ongoing
grievance, the clock begins to run at the time of the most recent incident.
There is great variation in the time limits for prisoners in subsequent steps (ranging from
one to 30 days). In North Carolina, for example, prisoners must request all appeals within 24
hours of receiving written rejection. The Federal Bureau of Prisons, in contrast, requires
appealing prisoners to submit the appropriate form within 30 days of the date the Regional
Director signs the response. The clock generally starts to run for these subsequent steps when a
decision is rendered in the previous step. However, policies differ in defining when a decision is
“rendered.” Several policies start the clock at the time when the prison enters the judgment (e.g.,
Harris County, Illinois) or before the prison responds to the complaint (e.g., Indiana, Michigan,
Montana, Nebraska). These troubling provisions allow prisons to delay notification of the
prisoner, thereby cutting into the prisoner’s time for completing the next step of the process.
Most policies start the clock for subsequent steps when the prisoner actually receives notification
of the judgment (e.g., Utah, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Georgia, Louisiana, Broward County).
This majority approach seems appropriate.
Recommendation 18: Policies should start the clock for subsequent steps when the
prisoner receives notification of the decision on the prior step.

Page 21

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
TABLE 3: TIME LIMITS FOR INITIAL FILING OF PRISONER GRIEVANCES 10
2-4 days
PRISONS
2 days
Michigan*†
3 days
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Rhode Island

5-7 days

8-14 days

15-30 days

> 30 days

5 days
Kentucky*
Montana*
New Mexico
South Carolina

10 days
Arizona*
Georgia
Massachusetts*
Nevada 11
New Jersey
Vermont*
Wyoming

15 days
Arkansas†
Kansas
Maine
Missouri
North Dakota
Pennsylvania*
Texas
West Virginia

45 days
Minnesota

7 days
Tennessee
Utah

14 days
Ohio
Hawaii
Wisconsin

20 days
Federal BOP
Florida
Indiana*
Washington

60 days
Illinois
90 days
Louisiana
180 days
Nevada
1 year
North Carolina

21 days
New York
30 days
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Idaho
Iowa
Maryland
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Oregon*
South Dakota
Virginia

JAILS
2 days
Maricopa County

5 days
Broward County*
Miami-Dade*

10 days
New York City
Philadelphia
San Bernardino

15 days
Cook County
LA County

14 days
Orange County
* Business or working days
† Informal resolution, if required

10

Not listed are Delaware, Washington DC, Dallas County, Harris County, and San Diego County, which
do not state a time limit for initial filing.
11

In Nevada, prisoners have six months to file personal property damage or loss, personal injury, medical
claims, or any other tort claims, including civil rights claims. They have 10 days to file for other issues within the
authority and control of the Department of Corrections, including, but not limited to, classification, disciplinary,
mail and correspondence, religious items, and food.

Page 22

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey

B.

TIME LIMITS FOR CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS

In addition to setting time limits for prisoners, policies typically establish time limits for
prisons to respond at each stage. Fifty policies require prisons to provide initial responses within
30 or fewer days (Federal BOP, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
DC, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Broward County, Cook County,
Dallas County, LA County, Maricopa County, Miami-Dade, New York City, Orange County,
Philadelphia, San Bernardino County, San Diego County). As grievances progress through
different levels of appeal, prisons often have longer time limits to issue decisions, presumably
because later stage appeals are often reviewed by higher level administrators or committees (e.g.,
Federal BOP, Delaware, Kentucky). The longest time frames for a single stage of the grievance
process were observed in Georgia and Missouri, which each give the prisons 100 days to respond
to appeals.
At least half of all policies expressly allow the institution to obtain an extension in
responding to grievances. Several of these policies do not specify the length of the available
extensions (e.g., Kentucky, Ohio). Policies that do specify a length of time for the extension
generally provide for extensions lasting from 10 to 30 days (e.g. Indiana: 15 working days for the
Executive Assistant and 20 working days for the Department Offender Grievance Manager;
Maryland: 15 days; Minnesota: 20 working days). Examples of the longest extensions available
are Colorado and Florida, which each allow extensions of 70 days. Moreover, many states
specify a maximum length of time for the grievance process (e.g., Arizona: 120 days; Colorado:
90 days; Iowa: 103 days; North Carolina: 120 days).
Recommendation 19: Policies should require officials to provide initial responses
within 30 or fewer days. Fifteen days is the most common time limit (Arizona, DC, Indiana,
Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Cook County,
Dallas County, Los Angeles) and provides a reasonable target. Extensions should not exceed 30
days. These time limits must appropriately reflect the challenges of administering the grievance
process. For example, institutions may have few resources or may use external administrative
bodies to resolve appeals; both circumstances may justify a longer time limit for prison
responses. Yet grievance policies must place reasonable limits on the broad discretion of prisons
in administering this process. Not only do prisoners justifiably want redress within a reasonable
amount of time, but prisoners may need the grievance system to put an end to ongoing
victimization or other serious problems.
Furthermore, many policies require prisons to respond to emergency grievances in a
much shorter time frame. The shortest time frames observed require the prison to respond to
emergency grievances within eight hours (Vermont, Washington). Other outliers allow prisons to
take five (New Jersey), seven (South Carolina), or even 15 (Florida) days to respond to an
emergency grievance. Most policies that specify time frames for emergency grievances require
responses within 24 to 72 hours (Federal BOP, Arizona, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Dallas County,
Harris County. (The consequences of these time frames will also vary depending on the
definition of “emergency grievance.”) Recommendation 20: Policies should require officials
to provide initial responses within 72 hours for emergency grievances.

Page 23

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
TABLE 4: TIME LIMITS FOR INITIAL RESPONSE FROM PRISON 12
2-4 days
PRISONS
3 days
Arkansas*

5-7 days

8-14 days

15-30 days

> 30 days

5 days
New Mexico*
Washington*
West Virginia
Wisconsin*
Wyoming*

10 days
Alaska*
Florida
Kansas
Kentucky*
Massachusetts*
Nebraska*
South Dakota

15 days
Arizona*
D.C.
Indiana
Michigan*
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Oklahoma*
Pennsylvania*
Virginia

40 days
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Texas

16 days
New York

55 days
South Carolina

20 days
Federal BOP
Hawaii
Minnesota*
Montana*
Rhode Island*
Vermont*

60 days
Illinois

7 days
Delaware
Ohio
Tennessee

45 days
Nevada
Oregon

90 days
North Carolina

21 days
Iowa
Utah*
25 days
Colorado
30 days
California
Connecticut*
Idaho
Maine
JAILS
2 days
San Bernardino

5 days
New York City
Orange County

10 days
Broward County*
Miami-Dade*

7 days
Maricopa County
San Diego

15 days
Cook County*
Dallas County
LA County

60 days
Harris County

30 days
Philadelphia

* Business or working days

12

Not listed are Maryland and North Dakota, which do not state a time limit for prison response.

Page 24

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey

CONCLUSION
The goal of producing this report and posting each jurisdiction’s grievance policy on the
web is to increase transparency and accountability in the correctional system. We also hope that
identifying both problematic and best practices will lead to meaningful reform. Jurisdictions
whose grievance procedures fail to efficiently and effectively address legitimate grievances may
use other less onerous policies or adopt the majority approach as models for improvement.
We hope, too, that many others—academics, corrections professionals, advocates, and
interested members of the public—will use the documents we collected, and the Policy
Clearinghouse on which they are posted, in order to do research, advocacy, and policy analysis.
For example, those who work with prisoners can find the grievance rules there, saving time
(sometimes crucial time) and energy that would be needed to obtain them. There are also many
remaining research questions to be explored. For instance, as already described, some observers
speculated that the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodford might encourage prison and jails to
increase the complexity and difficulty of their grievance procedures; prisoners tripped up when
they attempted to exhaust those procedures would then be barred from federal lawsuits. It is clear
that prison officials have plenty of incentive to reduce prisoner lawsuits against themselves, and
the exhaustion requirement givens them a tool with which to do so. We have not examined
whether this dynamic in fact occurred. But the document collection we did for this project,
coupled with past policies gathered earlier and also posted at http://clearinghouse.net/policy, now
makes it possible to answer this question.
For America’s prisons and jails to meet the basic needs of individuals under their
correctional control, they must develop and implement effective grievance policies. This report
suggests that many jurisdictions could make simple but meaningful changes to advance towards
this important goal.

Page 25

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey

APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY
1.

DATA COLLECTION

Our data collection strategy targeted all 50 state departments of corrections, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the agencies operating the 12
largest metropolitan jail systems. We obtained at least partial information for all of these
jurisdictions, except Puerto Rico. In total, we obtained the policy information that is analyzed in
this paper for over 99% of U.S. prisoners, 13 and approximately 13% of the nation’s jail inmates.
Our public records requests or other research methods covered four different types of
documents from each institution: prison grievance policies (including general and specific),
prisoner handbooks, compiled statistics on grievances collected by the prison in the past ten
years, and policies related to prisoner mail. With regard to grievance polices, we were aware that
these could appear in administrative regulations, policy directives, or correctional manuals,
depending on the jurisdiction. Although these materials are issued by different government
authorities and vary in structure and detail, we sought multiple sources in order to gather a
comprehensive collection.
Our first step was to search for each state’s grievance policies online. These frequently
appeared in two places: (1) central collections of a state’s administrative code and (2) state
departments of correction (“DOC”) websites. For jails, the Sheriff’s Department website for the
county was typically the most useful source of information. Forty-four out of 53 prison systems
(83%) had complete and updated policies available on their websites. Jails were far less likely to
have complete and updated grievance policies online than state prisons. Only four out of 12 jails
(33%) had complete and updated policies online.
We next sent public-records requests (“FOIA Requests” 14) to each jurisdiction, under
various state public-records or freedom-of-information statutes. 15 We specifically chose to
contact, in order of preference, (1) public-records coordinators or FOIA officers (about one-third
of the prison and jail systems list specific individuals who respond to FOIA requests); (2) public
information officers, spokespersons, or designated media contacts; and (3) general administrative
officers or general counsels’ offices. We searched online for contact information, on both agency
websites and general state employee directories. In most cases, we were able to contact each
institution by email. For 12 of the 64 jurisdictions contacted, we were unable to find email
addresses and sent our requests by snail mail.
In each request, we asked for “all current prisoner grievance regulations, policies,
guidelines, manuals, directives, rules, etc., including general grievance policies/guidelines/etc.
and specific grievance policies/guidelines/etc. relating to, for example, health care or sexual
assault.” We defined “grievance” to mean any “grievance or complaint, whether formal or
13

The report excludes the populations of territorial prisons, which held approximately 14,000 prisoners in
2013. This represents a tiny fraction of American prisoners. See Lauren E. Glaze & Danielle Kaeble, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, NCJ 248479, Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013, at 12-13 (2014), available at
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf.
14

Although states have different names for their public records statutes, we refer to name of the federal law

for ease.
15

We did not contact the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The information in this report on the Federal BOP is
based on the grievance policy posted on the BOP website.

Page 26

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
informal, whatever the subject matter.” We also requested prisoner mail policies, 16 prisoner
handbooks, 17 and compiled statistics kept on the grievance system. 18 When state law provided
for waivers of fees for non-profit, public-interest, academic, or media organizations, we
requested such a waiver, though our request was often denied.
Jurisdiction responsiveness varied greatly. Two prison systems (Louisiana, Ohio) and one
jail system (San Bernardino County) responded completely within about one week. Twelve
states initially requested fees ranging from a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. The largest
fees initially requested were from Hawaii ($720), Michigan ($592), and Massachusetts ($220),
though we were able to negotiate on each of these, by clarifying/refining our request. Over the
course of about three months following our initial request, we communicated regularly with a
number of the jurisdictions. These communications typically involved inquiring about the status
of our request, working to narrow or explain our request, and negotiating reductions in fees. In
the end, we received the grievance policies of 63 jurisdictions. Alabama stated that it did not
have a general grievance policy, although it did provide a healthcare grievance policy. We were
unable to obtain a policy (or, indeed, any response at all) from Puerto Rico. Factors contributing
to the ease of collecting the requested documents include whether the documents were already in
digital form, whether the state had a single document (e.g., prisoner handbook or grievance
policy) for the whole prison system or a different one for individual prisons, and whether the
prison requested fees.
Table App-1 presents the results of our data collection process.

16

“Any current policy for prisoner mail or correspondence, including regular and legal mail, prisoner
receipt of newspapers, magazines, newsletters, and books.”
17

“Any current prisoner handbook or manual (including any inmate orientation handbook or manual),
system-wide or institution-specific.”
18

“Any record, created or updated from 2003 to the present, tallying or reporting: The number of
grievances filed and resolved each year; the categories or subject matter of grievances filed and resolved, and
number of grievances in each subject matter category used (for instance, grievances related to food, health care, use
of force, etc., and including both ordinary and “sensitive” complaints such as those involving allegations of staff
misconduct); grievance outcomes or resolutions each year, by subject matter category and year; statistics or data on
length of time to resolve grievances, by subject matter category and year. We are not requesting individual grievance
records. We are only requesting records that summarize, aggregate, or compile grievance data.”

Page 27

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
TABLE APP-1: DATA COLLECTION BY JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction

Grievance
Policy

Prisoner
Handbooks

Grievance
Statistics

Mail
Policy

Days to
Completion










































































































Total: 52

(NA)
(NA)
42
180
11
122
168
109
130
32
22
103
195
13
17
34
164
18
33
7
62
25
109
35
11
60
125
18
26
192
7
10
11
180
33
104
7
74
47
216
(NA)
74
30
21
54
48
47
13
136
111
11
120
177
Avg: 71.88

Fee Charged

PRISONS
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming




















































Total: 51




































Total: 49








Total: 38

Page 28

$43.00

$20.60

$97.33

$62.50
$80.00

$24.51

$192.50

$126.90

$1.77

Total: $649.11

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey
Jurisdiction

Grievance
Policy

Prisoner
Handbooks

Grievance
Statistics

Mail
Policy

Days to
Completion

Fee Charged













Total: 12














103
18
28
110
45
151
103
158
66
49
7
21
Avg: 71.58

$51.41

JAILS
Broward County, FL
Cook County, IL
Dallas County, TX
Harris County, TX
Los Angeles County, CA
Maricopa County, AZ
Miami-Dade County, FL
New York City, NY
Orange County, CA
Philadelphia, PA
San Bernardino, CA
San Diego, CA

2.










Total: 10

Total: 7





Total: 5

$3.30

$25.50
$44.40

Total: 124.61

METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS

There are two key limitations to our data collection methodology. First, variations in the
structure and detail of the grievance policies may have led to inconsistencies in analysis. For
example, three states use flowcharts to explain their procedures (Texas, Missouri, and Montana);
at least one county (Dallas County) lacks a formal policy, but outlines procedures in its
handbook; one state’s grievance procedures are divided between its state regulations and
operational manual, then further dispersed in various subsections titled “Inmate Property,”
“Prison Rape Elimination Act,” and “Appeals” (Idaho); and one state only uses its administrative
regulation (Kansas). Furthermore, the policies vary in length from a handful of pages (e.g.,
Vermont, Washington, Cook County, San Diego) to 154 pages (Texas). Because of this
variation, we were limited in our ability to uniformly analyze the policies. We improved
interrater reliability by discussing policies that posed particular difficulties and determining
collectively how best to analyze them in a uniform manner. Finally, we had a single member of
the team review the analysis of all the policies in order to correct for errors and standardize the
coding.
Second, this report does not account for the considerable discretion afforded to public
officials in administering the grievance process. Policies that lack detail or instruction on certain
aspects of the grievance process invite officials to fill in the gaps with informal or unwritten
practices. These decisions can alter the outcome and effectiveness of the grievance process.
Therefore, our examination of grievance policies may not be fully illustrative of the realities of a
process dominated by administrative discretion.

Page 29

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey

APPENDIX B: CODING
All 63 grievance policies were coded using 20 fields:
1) date promulgated
2) references to administrative codes or statutes
3) type of policy
4) name of policy
5) citations to external standards
6) citations to separate procedures for specialized grievances
7) steps
8) URL, if available online
9) time limits for prisoner
10) time limits for prison
11) punishments for grievances found frivolous, excessive, or abusive
12) definition of “grievance”
13) definition of non-grievable issues
14) remedies provided
15) procedural requirements
16) third party assistance
17) emergency grievance procedures
18) single-subject rules
19) guarantees of written responses from prison
20) length of policy.
The complete coding is available at http://clearinghouse.net/policy.

Page 30

Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey

APPENDIX C: STATISTICAL DATA
We received partial or complete statistical data on grievances filed and their success from 40
jurisdictions. The chart below summarizes this data for the five-year period from 2009-2013.
Complete data for the 10-year period from 2003-2013 can be found at
http://clearinghouse.net/policy.
TABLE APP-2: NUMBER OF GRIEVANCES BY JURISDICTION
2013
Jurisdiction
PRISONS
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Montana
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Texas
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Connecticut
D.C.
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Jersey
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Vermont
Wyoming
JAILS
Broward County
Cook County
Los Angeles
Maricopa County
Miami-Dade
New York City

N

4875
27380
78819
5233
4243
6297
5884
128
6299
3132
1668
162561
1468
42503
787
23408
113
14700
1870
15168
480
2103
206
11103
7615
49549
20527
2105

7966
14325
4910

2012

Successful

2248
179
487

279

885
18

22
536

N

4869
29338
78101
4998
4708
7102
5217
5950
45
6255
3132
1288
172524
2227
42338
556
167
33344
117
12541
1778
15380
422
2391
191
9384

2011

2010

Successful

N

Successful
409

3142
161
703

3682
4451
23839
74743
5630
5151
5326

874

949
30

22
417

5268
34013
102
6344
2763
1349
174525
42242
1810
655
32689
68
14772
2107
12806
707
2681
156
10014

2720
164
1097

666

992
14

155
12
327

N

4356
23081
76766
7124
5278
4586
5955
35600
40
6108
3091
1575
173559

2009

Successful

N

Successful
283

2234
199
2137

3259
4116
18245
75484
7571

1666
225
2199

5295
1167

997
22

5885
37557
77
6047
2858
1522
168501

44621

46590

623
36760
73
15417

933
34133
72
16190

12
392

14442
835
2523
189
10123

9698
170
2715
240
10062
77745

216

1132
20

12
413

12

3837
46735
28123
2346
5285
7576
9479
512
5051

112

46439
26818
829
3983

466

46614
26068
716
4388

7782

46087
25281

8424

3059
4905
6082
10574
600
4974

105

2345
2500
6207
10884
596
5607

69

2652
2664
11110
16070

33

4

5949

3

Page 31