How to file a BP-9

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Form number	BP-9 (also numbered BP-229)
Title as printed / form-face date / prescribed-by / replaces line	Not available — BOP does not publish this form
Governing Program Statement	1330.18, Administrative Remedy Program (January 6, 2014)
Governing regulation	28 C.F.R. part 542, subpart B (§§ 542.10–542.19)
Why it matters in court	42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) — the PLRA exhaustion requirement
Published by BOP?	No. bop.gov/policy/forms/BP_A0229.pdf returns HTTP 404 — verified 2026-09-07. So do BP_A0230.pdf (BP-10) and BP_A0231.pdf (BP-11).
Where you get one	From institution staff — “ordinarily, the correctional counselor,” per 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(c)(1)
Filing deadline	20 calendar days from the date the basis for the Request occurred
Length limit	The form, plus up to one letter-size (8½” × 11″) continuation page
Distribution as printed	Not available. Program Statement 1330.18 at p. 11 directs that “Three copies shall be returned to the inmate.”

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-07 · How we verify

A BP-9 is the Request for Administrative Remedy — the form on which a person in federal prison asks the Warden, in writing, to fix something about their own confinement, and the first formal step in the grievance system federal courts usually require a prisoner to finish before going to court. The Bureau of Prisons does not publish the BP-9 form itself, so this page cannot walk you through its printed blocks; it sets out instead what the regulation requires the completed form to contain, what deadlines attach at each level, and what happens after it is filed. The policy behind it is explained on the Administrative Remedy Program page; where the complaint is about a staff member, read that alongside reporting staff misconduct.

BOP does not publish this form, and we will not reconstruct it

We checked directly on 7 September 2026. Each request returned HTTP 404 and an HTML error page instead of a PDF:

Form	Common name	URL tested	Result
BP-A0229	BP-9, Request for Administrative Remedy	https://www.bop.gov/policy/forms/BP_A0229.pdf	404 — no document
BP-A0230	BP-10, Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal	https://www.bop.gov/policy/forms/BP_A0230.pdf	404 — no document
BP-A0231	BP-11, Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal	https://www.bop.gov/policy/forms/BP_A0231.pdf	404 — no document

By comparison, BP-A0148, Inmate Request to Staff and BP-A0288, Incident Report on the same server both return a PDF. The forms exist — the regulation names them, staff hand them out, SENTRY logs them — but the agency does not publish them, and that absence is part of the reader’s problem. You cannot download a BP-9 and mail it in. The regulation requires the form to come from staff: “The inmate shall obtain the appropriate form from CCC staff or institution staff (ordinarily, the correctional counselor).” 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(c)(1). Family cannot obtain one either, and separately cannot file one: “no person may submit a Request or Appeal on the inmate’s behalf.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.16(a). Anything online purporting to be a blank BP-9 did not come from the Bureau; we have not reproduced one and would not.

What the form must contain

Because the form is not published, the regulation’s own list is the operative text:

(c) Form. (1) The inmate shall obtain the appropriate form from CCC staff or institution staff (ordinarily, the correctional counselor). (2) The inmate shall place a single complaint or a reasonable number of closely related issues on the form. If the inmate includes on a single form multiple unrelated issues, the submission shall be rejected and returned without response, and the inmate shall be advised to use a separate form for each unrelated issue. For DHO and UDC appeals, each separate incident report number must be appealed on a separate form. (3) The inmate shall complete the form with all requested identifying information and shall state the complaint in the space provided on the form. If more space is needed, the inmate may use up to one letter-size (8 1/2” by 11”) continuation page. (4) The inmate shall date and sign the Request and submit it to the institution staff member designated to receive such Requests (ordinarily a correctional counselor). CCC inmates may mail their Requests to the CCM.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(c). The same requirements appear as the regulation text in Program Statement 1330.18 at pp. 5–6.

Four consequences follow: one issue per form; one continuation page, and no more; dated and signed; and handed to a designated staff member, not mailed to the Warden. On the continuation page the Program Statement adds that inmates must supply an extra copy, that “Exhibits will not be returned with the response,” and that they are “encouraged to retain a copy of all exhibits,” because exhibit copies must be re-filed at every appeal level. PS 1330.18 at p. 6.

PS 1330.18 names the three forms; these are the numbers to use when asking staff:

• Request for Administrative Remedy, Form BP-9 (BP-229), is appropriate for filing at the institution.
• Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal, Form BP-10 (BP-230), is appropriate for submitting an appeal to the regional office.
• Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal, Form BP-11 (BP-231), is appropriate for submitting an appeal to the Central Office.

Reproduced verbatim from Program Statement 1330.18 at p. 5.

Before the BP-9: informal resolution

A BP-9 is ordinarily not the first step. 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a) provides that “an inmate shall first present an issue of concern informally to staff, and staff shall attempt to informally resolve the issue before an inmate submits a Request for Administrative Remedy.” The regulation names no form for that step and the Bureau publishes none; in most institutions the vehicle is the BP-A0148, Inmate Request to Staff — the “cop-out” — because Program Statement 1330.18 leaves the mechanics local: “Each warden shall establish procedures to allow for the informal resolution of inmate complaints.” PS 1330.18 at p. 5.

Three exceptions and one safety valve sit in the regulation itself. Informal resolution is not required for inmates in Community Corrections Centers, nor before a submission going directly to the regional or Central Office under § 542.14(d), and it “may be waived … when the inmate demonstrates an acceptable reason for bypassing informal resolution.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(b). The safety valve: if an inmate asks for the formal form and “nevertheless refuses to present a request informally, staff should provide the form for a formal Request.” PS 1330.18 at p. 5.

The deadlines, level by level

The regulation sets one number for the initial filing:

“The deadline for completion of informal resolution and submission of a formal written Administrative Remedy Request, on the appropriate form (BP-9), is 20 calendar days following the date on which the basis for the Request occurred.”

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a).

Note where the clock starts: the date the basis for the Request occurred, not the date a cop-out was answered — informal resolution has to fit inside that window. How it applies to a particular set of facts is a question for counsel; we do not calculate it for anyone.

The regulation provides for extension where the delay was not the inmate’s doing:

“Where the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay, an extension in filing time may be allowed. In general, valid reason for delay means a situation which prevented the inmate from submitting the request within the established time frame. Valid reasons for delay include the following: an extended period in-transit during which the inmate was separated from documents needed to prepare the Request or Appeal; an extended period of time during which the inmate was physically incapable of preparing a Request or Appeal; an unusually long period taken for informal resolution attempts; indication by an inmate, verified by staff, that a response to the inmate’s request for copies of dispositions requested under § 542.19 of this part was delayed.”

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(b). The Program Statement adds: “Ordinarily, the inmate should submit written verification from staff for any claimed reason for delay.” PS 1330.18 at p. 5.

Once accepted, a Request “is considered filed on the date it is logged into the Administrative Remedy Index as received.” The full ladder:

Stage	Form	Deadline to file	Who responds	Response time	One extension of
Institution	BP-9 (BP-229)	20 calendar days from the date the basis for the Request occurred	Warden or CCM	20 calendar days	20 days
Region	BP-10 (BP-230)	20 calendar days from the date the Warden signed the response	Regional Director	30 calendar days	30 days
Central Office	BP-11 (BP-231)	30 calendar days from the date the Regional Director signed the response	General Counsel	40 calendar days	20 days

Filing deadlines from 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a) and § 542.15(a); response times and extensions from § 542.18.

Three further rules from § 542.18 belong with that table. An emergency Request “which threatens the inmate’s immediate health or welfare” must be answered “not later than the third calendar day after filing.” Any extension must be given in writing. And silence counts: “the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level.”

The appeal deadlines run from the date the responding official signed, and they are receipt dates. Each appeal must carry the paperwork from below — a BP-10 “accompanied by one complete copy or duplicate original of the institution Request and response,” a BP-11 with “the institution and regional filings and their responses” — and both “shall state specifically the reason for appeal.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(b)(1). Copy counts rise to two additional copies of any continuation page and exhibits regionally, three at the Central Office. And you cannot enlarge the case on the way up: “An inmate may not raise in an Appeal issues not raised in the lower level filings.”

Two situations displace the 20 days at the first level. Allegations of sexual abuse have no filing deadline — under the PREA standards the Bureau adopted into this Program Statement, “The agency shall not impose a time limit on when an inmate may submit a grievance regarding an allegation of sexual abuse.” PS 1330.18 at p. 13. And a disputed telephone charge for which the inmate seeks reimbursement carries a 120-day window under the settlement in Washington v. Reno, “for such period of time as this settlement remains in effect.” PS 1330.18 at p. 4. Telephone complaints that are not billing disputes stay on the 20-day clock. See inmate telephone regulations.

When a BP-9 is not where you start

Four situations skip the institution, all in 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d):

• Sensitive issues. If the inmate “reasonably believes the issue is sensitive and the inmate’s safety or well-being would be placed in danger if the Request became known at the institution,” the Request may go straight to the Regional Director, marked “Sensitive,” with a written explanation. If the Regional Coordinator disagrees, the Request is neither accepted nor returned — only a notice comes back — and the inmate may then file locally, with the Warden allowing “a reasonable extension of time for such a resubmission.”
• DHO appeals. “DHO appeals shall be submitted initially to the Regional Director for the region where the inmate is currently located” — a BP-10, not a BP-9, and the most common misfiling after a disciplinary hearing. A Unit Discipline Committee action is appealed at the institution on a BP-9. See the incident report and the Inmate Discipline Program.
• Control Unit appeals go directly to the General Counsel.
• Decisions that did not originate with the Warden “may be initially filed with the Bureau office which made the original decision, and appealed directly to the General Counsel” — the provision that matters when a decision came from the Designation and Sentence Computation Center rather than the institution.

If it comes back rejected

A rejection is not a denial. The Coordinator “may reject and return to the inmate without response a Request or an Appeal that … does not meet any other requirement of this part.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.17(a). Three protections attach.

You get a written reason, “signed by the Administrative Remedy Coordinator, explaining the reason for rejection.” § 542.17(b).

A fixable defect gets time to fix. “If the defect on which the rejection is based is correctable, the notice shall inform the inmate of a reasonable time extension within which to correct the defect and resubmit.” Correctable defects include “failure to sign a submission, failure to submit the required copies,” and what staff treat as reasonable is “five calendar days … at the institution level; at least 10 calendar days at the CCM or regional offices; and 15 calendar days at the Central Office.” PS 1330.18 at p. 8.

A rejection with no chance to fix it can itself be appealed to the next level, where the Coordinator “may affirm the rejection, may direct that the submission be accepted at the lower level … or may accept the submission for filing.” § 542.17(c). Coordinators are also told to consider accepting a submission raising “a sensitive or problematic issue, such as medical treatment, sentence computation, or staff misconduct, even though that submission may be somewhat untimely.” PS 1330.18 at pp. 8–9.

Why this paperwork matters outside the prison

Because Congress made it a precondition to suing. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

In Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016), the Supreme Court held that language mandatory, and that courts may not create a “special circumstances” exception, because “mandatory exhaustion statutes like the PLRA establish mandatory exhaustion regimes, foreclosing judicial discretion.” But it reaches only remedies genuinely available, and the Court named three situations in which one is not: where the procedure “operates as a simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief”; where the scheme “is so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use”; and where “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.”

Program Statement 1330.18 says the same from the Bureau’s side: “In many cases, courts require a proper Appeal to the General Counsel before an inmate may pursue the complaint in court.” PS 1330.18 at p. 7. That appeal — the BP-11 — “is the final administrative appeal.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). Whether a given set of filings satisfies exhaustion depends on the record. It is the reason to keep every receipt, rejection notice, dated copy and extension notice.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: What we ask for first, when a family calls about a grievance, is the paper: the cop-out with its disposition box, the SENTRY receipt, the Remedy ID, any rejection notice, and the dated response. What sinks a file is usually not a bad argument — it is two unrelated issues on one form, a missing signature, or an appeal raising something the BP-9 never mentioned.

Frequently Asked Questions About Filing a BP-9

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026