Prison Grievances | Administrative Remedy Program

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

A prison grievance in the federal system is called an administrative remedy, and it runs on a four-step ladder with hard deadlines: an informal attempt with staff, then a BP-9 to the warden within 20 calendar days of the event, a BP-10 to the regional director within 20 calendar days of the warden’s signed response, and a BP-11 to the General Counsel within 30 calendar days of the regional director’s signed response. Miss a step or a deadline and a federal court can throw out the lawsuit you were building toward, even if you were right on the merits — that is what Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006), means by “proper exhaustion.”

This page reproduces every deadline in the program, on both sides of the clock — the days you get to file and the days the Bureau gets to answer — from the binding regulation at 28 C.F.R. part 542 and the Bureau’s instruction for applying it, Program Statement 1330.18, Administrative Remedy Program (Jan. 6, 2014). A Program Statement is agency policy, not law. Where the two ever diverge, the regulation is what binds the Bureau and what a court reads.

Every administrative remedy deadline in one table

The table below is the whole clock. The left half is the deadline you have to meet. The right half is the deadline the Bureau has to meet, and what happens when it blows through it.

Step	Form	Filed with	Your deadline	Their deadline to respond	Extension available to them
1. Informal resolution	Locally issued form, commonly called a BP-8 (many institutions use BP-A0148, Inmate Request to Staff)	Your correctional counselor / unit team	No national deadline — but it must be completed inside the same 20 days the BP-9 is due	No national deadline. Set by local institution supplement, if at all	n/a
2. BP-9 — Request for Administrative Remedy	BP-9 (BP-229)	The warden	20 calendar days from the date the basis for the request occurred	20 calendar days from filing	+20 days, once
3. BP-10 — Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal	BP-10 (BP-230)	The regional director	20 calendar days from the date the warden signed the response	30 calendar days from filing	+30 days, once
4. BP-11 — Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal	BP-11 (BP-231)	The General Counsel, Office of National Inmate Appeals	30 calendar days from the date the regional director signed the response	40 calendar days from filing	+20 days, once

Sources: filing deadlines — 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a) and § 542.15(a); response deadlines and extensions — 28 C.F.R. § 542.18; form numbers — PS 1330.18 at p. 5.

Five details in that table do most of the damage when people get them wrong.

The clock on an appeal runs from the signature date, not the date you received the paper. Section 542.15(a) ties the BP-10 to “the date the Warden signed the response” and the BP-11 to “the date the Regional Director signed the response.” Responses sometimes take a week or more to reach a housing unit. That week comes out of your 20 or 30 days, not theirs.

The deadline is a receipt deadline, not a mailing deadline. PS 1330.18 at p. 7 says plainly that “[t]hese deadlines specify the date of the Appeal’s receipt in the regional office or the Central Office,” and that they “have been made deliberately long to allow sufficient mail time.” Mail a BP-11 on day 29 and it is late.

Silence is a denial you are allowed to act on. Under § 542.18, “[i]f the inmate does not receive a response within the time allotted for reply, including extension, the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level.” You do not have to wait indefinitely. You do have to count correctly, because the allotted time includes any extension the Bureau noticed in writing.

An emergency BP-9 gets a three-day answer. If a request “is determined to be of an emergency nature which threatens the inmate’s immediate health or welfare, the Warden shall respond not later than the third calendar day after filing” (§ 542.18). Mark it Emergency on the form and explain in writing why it qualifies.

A telephone billing dispute gets 120 days, not 20. Under the Washington v. Reno settlement, PS 1330.18 at p. 4 gives 120 days from the disputed charge to complete informal resolution and file a BP-9 seeking reimbursement to a telephone account. Complaints about telephone privileges, lists or access are back on the ordinary 20-day clock. See our page on inmate phone calls for how the accounts work.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: The single most common way a good grievance dies is arithmetic. Before anything else gets drafted, we build a date line: date of the event, date the BP-8 went in, date the BP-9 was logged, date each response was signed, date each was delivered. That date line is what an assistant U.S. attorney will later use to argue non-exhaustion, so it is what we build first — not last.

The BP-9, BP-10 and BP-11 forms are not on the internet

This is worth stating plainly because it wastes an enormous amount of family time. The Bureau does not publish the BP-9, BP-10 or BP-11 forms. They are not downloadable from bop.gov, they are not in the public forms library, and no legitimate site can hand you a blank one. 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(c)(1) says where they come from: “The inmate shall obtain the appropriate form from CCC staff or institution staff (ordinarily, the correctional counselor).”

That has a practical consequence. Every form in this process must be requested from staff inside the institution, and the person in custody has to do the requesting. A family member cannot download the packet, fill it out and mail it in. Under 28 C.F.R. § 542.16 family members and attorneys may help prepare a request — “no person may submit a Request or Appeal on the inmate’s behalf,” and getting help “will not be considered a valid reason for exceeding a time limit for submission unless the delay was caused by staff.”

The one form in this process that the Bureau does publish is BP-A0148, Inmate Request to Staff — the “cop-out.” At most institutions it doubles as the informal-resolution vehicle that precedes a BP-9. Its instruction line is a useful warning about how the whole program works: “Briefly state your question or concern and the solution you are requesting… Your failure to be specific may result in no action being taken.”

One thing about that form has changed, and it matters for how a request actually gets filed. Under PS 5511.08, Inmate Request to Staff, effective 19 March 2026, which rescinded PS 5511.07 (1998), a request to staff is now submitted through the electronic Request to Staff Service in TRULINCS rather than on paper. Inmates are limited to one request per department per day, and a response, if warranted, is ordinarily completed within 30 calendar days. The paper BP-A0148 is reserved for people the Warden exempts — for physical or mental incapacity, other extraordinary circumstances preventing use of a TRULINCS terminal, or security concerns such as placement in a Special Housing Unit — and for anyone housed in a Protective Custody Unit, where the electronic service is not available at all (PS 5511.08 at p. 2). So the form remains real and remains the only published form in this area; it is no longer the ordinary way a request reaches staff.

Wardens do have an obligation to make the process usable. Section 542.16(b) requires that “assistance is available for inmates who are illiterate, disabled, or who are not functionally literate in English,” including reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability to prepare and process a request. The Bureau’s own instruction adds that unit staff must provide help when contacted by such a person (PS 1330.18 at p. 8). Our full explainer on the policy itself is at BOP Administrative Remedy Program, with the program statement broken down at Program Statement 1330-18.

Step 1: informal resolution, and the form the regulation never names

Before a formal request, 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a) requires that “an inmate shall first present an issue of concern informally to staff, and staff shall attempt to informally resolve the issue.” Each warden establishes local procedures for it, and those procedures “may not operate to limit inmate access to formal filing of a Request.”

Here is a distinction almost every page on this subject gets wrong. Neither the regulation nor Program Statement 1330.18 names a “BP-8.” The regulation describes a step, not a paper. The term “BP-8” is institutional shorthand that grew up around whatever local informal-resolution form a given prison uses — often a locally printed sheet, often the BP-A0148 cop-out. That is why the response time for step 1 varies so much: there is no national response deadline for informal resolution, and whether one exists at your facility depends entirely on the local administrative remedy institution supplement. Some institutions give unit staff a fixed number of working days. Others give them none.

What the regulation does fix is the outer boundary. Section 542.14(a) sets a single deadline for “completion of informal resolution and submission of a formal written Administrative Remedy Request.” Informal resolution does not pause the 20 days. It runs inside them.

There are four ways past step 1. Section 542.13(b) exempts people housed in residential reentry centers, waives it for anything filed directly at the regional or Central Office under § 542.14(d), and lets the warden or the institution’s Administrative Remedy Coordinator waive it “when the inmate demonstrates an acceptable reason for bypassing informal resolution.” The Bureau’s instruction gives examples: appeals of Unit Discipline Committee action, or issues too sensitive for informal handling (PS 1330.18 at p. 4). Fourth, allegations of sexual abuse are exempt entirely, discussed below.

If informal resolution stalls, that stall is itself usable. Section 542.14(b) lists “an unusually long period taken for informal resolution attempts” as a valid reason for a late filing — but you should expect to produce written verification from staff to prove it.

Step 2: the BP-9 to the warden

The BP-9 is the formal request, and it is the filing that defines the case. Section 542.14(c)(2) requires “a single complaint or a reasonable number of closely related issues” on the form. Put unrelated issues on one form and “the submission shall be rejected and returned without response.” For discipline appeals, “each separate incident report number must be appealed on a separate form” — a rule that matters if a single incident produced two or three separate incident reports.

Space is tight and the limit is regulatory, not local: “[i]f more space is needed, the inmate may use up to one letter-size (8 1/2″ by 11″) continuation page.” One page. The Bureau’s instruction adds that an additional copy of the continuation page must be provided, and that one copy of supporting exhibits must be submitted, that exhibits will not be returned with the response, and that because copies of exhibits must be filed with any appeal, “the inmate is encouraged to retain a copy of all exhibits for his or her personal records” (PS 1330.18 at p. 6).

That single-page limit drives how a good administrative remedy is written. The body of the form states the issue, the policy or regulation violated, and the specific relief requested. The continuation page carries the facts and the argument. Everything else is an exhibit.

Copies matter more than they look like they should. Section 542.15(b)(3) requires two additional copies of any continuation page and exhibits with the regional appeal, and three additional copies with the Central Office appeal — plus copies of the exhibits used at every prior level. A short-copies submission is a correctable defect, but correcting it burns days you may not have.

Where the BP-9 gets logged matters too. PS 1330.18 at p. 10 provides that a request is logged at the institution where the person is housed when it is handed to staff, and that if the event happened at a previous institution, the previous institution must promptly provide any investigation or assistance needed. If the person transfers after handing the request in but before it is logged or answered, the institution where it was first given to staff stays responsible for answering it. That is a useful rule when a transfer lands mid-grievance.

Steps 3 and 4: the regional and Central Office appeals

An appeal is not a second bite. Section 542.15(b)(2) provides that “[a]n inmate may not raise in an Appeal issues not raised in the lower level filings,” and may not combine appeals of separate lower-level responses with different case numbers into a single appeal. Everything you might eventually want a federal judge to see has to appear in the BP-9. This is the sleeper rule in the whole program, and it is the reason a BP-9 written in thirty seconds can cost a lawsuit two years later.

The regional appeal (BP-10) must be accompanied by “one complete copy or duplicate original of the institution Request and response.” The Central Office appeal (BP-11) must carry “one complete copy or duplicate original of the institution and regional filings and their responses.” Both must “state specifically the reason for appeal.”

Which regional office receives the BP-10 is determined by where the person is confined at the time of mailing the appeal, “regardless of the institution that responded to the institution filing” (PS 1330.18 at p. 7). Our directory of BOP regional offices lists all six; the Central Office in Washington, D.C. houses the Office of National Inmate Appeals that answers the BP-11.

Appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative appeal. Section 542.15(a) says so in those words, and the Bureau’s own instruction adds the sentence that matters most for anyone thinking about court: “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).

Filing outside the ordinary ladder

Four situations skip or reroute the normal sequence. Getting these wrong produces a rejection that costs weeks.

Sensitive requests. Under § 542.14(d)(1), if the person “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 goes directly to the regional director, marked “Sensitive” on its face with a written explanation for bypassing the institution. If the Regional Administrative Remedy Coordinator disagrees that it is sensitive, the request is not accepted and is not returned — only a rejection notice comes back. The person may then refile locally with the warden, who “shall allow a reasonable extension of time for such a resubmission.”

Discipline Hearing Officer appeals. DHO appeals do not start at the institution. Section 542.14(d)(2) sends them “initially to the Regional Director for the region where the inmate is currently located” — that is, a BP-10 as the first filing. Our page on inmate discipline proceedings walks the hearing itself, and rules and discipline covers the prohibited-act codes.

Control unit and controlled housing appeals. Appeals of Executive Panel review of control unit placement go directly to the General Counsel; appeals of a regional director’s review of controlled housing status may be filed directly with the General Counsel (§ 542.14(d)(3)–(4)).

Decisions that did not originate with the warden. Section 542.14(d) also allows formal requests about initial decisions “that did not originate with the Warden, or his/her staff” to be filed with the Bureau office that made the decision and appealed directly to the General Counsel — the route for a designation or sentence-computation decision made at Grand Prairie rather than at the institution.

Allegations of sexual abuse are on a different clock entirely. Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act standards at 28 C.F.R. § 115.52, incorporated at Section 16 of PS 1330.18, the Bureau “shall not impose a time limit on when an inmate may submit a grievance regarding an allegation of sexual abuse”; informal resolution is not required; a third party — including family, an attorney or another incarcerated person — may file on the person’s behalf with their documented agreement; and the agency must issue a final decision on the merits within 90 days of the initial filing, with a possible written extension of up to 70 days. An emergency grievance alleging a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse gets an initial response within 48 hours and a final agency decision within five calendar days. See violence and sexual assault in prison for the reporting routes that sit alongside this.

Rejections, resubmission, and appealing a rejection

A rejection is not the same as a denial, and the difference is worth understanding because rejections are common.

Under 28 C.F.R. § 542.17, a coordinator at any level may reject and return a submission “that is written by an inmate in a manner that is obscene or abusive, or does not meet any other requirement of this part.” When that happens, the person must get a written rejection notice signed by the Administrative Remedy Coordinator explaining why, and — if the defect is correctable — telling them how long they have to fix it and resubmit.

The Bureau’s instruction sets those resubmission windows: “five calendar days from the date of the notice to the inmate is reasonable for resubmission 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). Typical correctable defects are an unsigned form, missing copies, or a missing copy of the lower-level submission.

Two protections sit inside § 542.17. First, if a submission is rejected and no opportunity to correct is given, the rejection itself is appealable to the next level, and the coordinator there may affirm it, direct the lower level to accept the filing, or accept it outright. Second, the Bureau instructs its own coordinators to be flexible: “especially at the institution level, [coordinators] should be flexible, keeping in mind that major purposes of this Program are to solve problems and be responsive to issues inmates raise,” and should 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).

That last sentence is quotable, and it is worth quoting back to a coordinator. It does not create a right. It does establish that the Bureau’s own written instruction contemplates accepting a late filing on a serious issue.

If you have missed a deadline, file anyway and explain why. Section 542.14(b) allows an extension where there is a valid reason for delay, and gives four examples: an extended period in transit separated from the documents needed to prepare the filing; an extended period of physical incapacity; an unusually long informal-resolution attempt; and a staff-verified delay in receiving copies requested under § 542.19. Expect to submit written verification from staff.

Exhaustion under the PLRA: what “available” and “properly exhausted” mean

Before anyone in custody can sue over prison conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires that “[n]o 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.” For a federal prisoner, “such administrative remedies as are available” means the BP-9 / BP-10 / BP-11 ladder above.

Two Supreme Court decisions define the edges of that requirement.

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) holds that the PLRA demands proper exhaustion — compliance with the agency’s own deadlines and procedural rules. A grievance filed late, or rejected on a procedural ground and never cured, does not exhaust, even though no administrative remedy remains. The Court also confirmed, following Booth v. Churner, that exhaustion is required “even where the relief sought — monetary damages — cannot be granted by the administrative process.” The Administrative Remedy Program cannot pay damages. You still have to run it.

Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) cuts the other way, and it is the case to know if the process was obstructed. Ross rejects any judge-made “special circumstances” excuse, holding that the statute’s mandatory language “means a court may not excuse a failure to exhaust.” But it also holds that the duty extends only to remedies that are genuinely available — “capable of use to obtain some relief for the action complained of” — and identifies three circumstances in which a remedy is not:

When a remedy is unavailable under Ross v. Blake	What it looks like in a BOP setting
It is a dead end — officials are “unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief”	The office the process directs you to disclaims authority over the issue, or the relief you need is not something any level can grant
It is “so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use” — “no ordinary prisoner can discern or navigate it”	The Court set this bar high: a process open to “multiple reasonable interpretations” is still available, and the person should “err on the side of exhaustion”
Officials thwart its use “through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation”	Forms withheld, filings not logged, threats or retaliation for filing, staff misstating the deadline

Documenting the obstruction as it happens is what makes a Ross argument work later. Copies of every cop-out asking for a form, names and dates, and the response — or the absence of one — are the record.

Two further PLRA constraints belong here even though they are about the lawsuit, not the grievance. Section 1997e(e) bars a federal civil action by a prisoner “for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act (as defined in section 2246 of title 18),” and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(2) imposes the same restriction on tort claims against the United States. These are questions for a lawyer on the specific facts, and they are among the reasons the content of a grievance matters as much as its timeliness.

What the Administrative Remedy Program cannot do

The program has a defined scope and four significant carve-outs. Filing the wrong instrument is one of the more painful ways to lose a claim, because the deadline on the correct instrument usually keeps running while the wrong one is being processed.

Section 542.10(a) limits the program to “an issue relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement,” and “[a]n inmate may not submit a Request or Appeal on behalf of another inmate.” (The president of a recognized inmate organization may file about an issue affecting that organization.) Section 542.10(b) extends the program to people in Bureau institutions, to those designated to contract residential reentry centers under Bureau responsibility, and to former prisoners “for issues that arose during their confinement.” It does not apply to people held in non-federal facilities.

Section 542.10(c) then routes three categories out of the program entirely, to “statutorily-mandated procedures”:

If your issue is…	It does not go on a BP-9. It goes…	Governing authority
Injury, death, or property loss caused by staff negligence	On an SF-95 administrative tort claim to the regional office — see federal tort claims	28 C.F.R. part 543, subpart C; 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)
Injury from a prison work assignment	On an inmate accident compensation claim (FPI Form 43)	28 C.F.R. part 301
A request for your own records	On a FOIA or Privacy Act request — see FOIA and Privacy Act requests	28 C.F.R. part 513, subpart D

The regulation provides that where an inmate raises an issue in the program that cannot be resolved there, “the Bureau will refer the inmate to the appropriate statutorily-mandated procedures.” Do not count on the referral arriving in time. The two-year FTCA presentment deadline runs on its own.

Benefits and risks of filing an administrative remedy

The honest case for filing is that it is the only route to most things, and that it sometimes simply works. A well-drafted BP-9 puts a documented problem in front of a decision-maker with authority to fix it, creates a paper record that survives a transfer, and is the mandatory predicate for nearly every conditions-of-confinement lawsuit a federal prisoner might bring. Requests are also indexed in SENTRY and answered in writing, so the file exists whether or not the answer is favorable.

The honest case against filing a bad one is equally real. The program is a procedural machine: a filing with unrelated issues, no signature, missing copies, or the wrong level is rejected, and the rejection consumes days. An issue omitted from the BP-9 cannot be added on appeal. And a poorly framed request produces a written agency response that will later be quoted back at you, because the Bureau’s own instruction requires responses to cite the “Program Statements, Operations Memoranda, regulations, and statutes” relied on (PS 1330.18 at p. 10). A bad grievance does not just fail. It builds the government’s record.

Retaliation is the fear families raise most often. What can be said accurately: 28 C.F.R. § 542.11 obliges staff to receive, record, investigate and answer filings, and PS 1330.18 at p. 10 forbids the staff member whose conduct is alleged — or anyone under their supervision — from investigating the allegation, and requires allegations of physical abuse by staff to be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs. Ross v. Blake holds that officials who thwart the process by intimidation make the remedy unavailable, which is a legal answer to retaliation, not a practical one. And under the PREA standards at § 115.52(g), the Bureau may discipline someone for a sexual-abuse grievance “only where the agency demonstrates that the inmate filed the grievance in bad faith.” What cannot responsibly be said is that retaliation never happens or that any particular practice has been declared illegal. If retaliation occurs, document it contemporaneously and get counsel involved.

Responses are also public in sanitized form. Under 28 C.F.R. § 542.19, indexes and responses with names and register numbers removed are available for inspection at institutions, regional offices and the Central Office, and copies may be purchased at FOIA rates — currently framed in PS 1330.18 at p. 12 as ten cents per page with no charge for the first 100 pages under 28 C.F.R. § 16.10. Prior responses on the same subject at the same institution are the best available guide to how a warden has ruled before.

Where people get stuck in the administrative remedy process

The response never came, and nobody knows what to do next. Count the days. Warden 20 (+20 if a written extension notice issued), regional 30 (+30), Central Office 40 (+20). When the allotted time including any noticed extension has run, § 542.18 lets you treat the silence as a denial and go up. Keep the SENTRY receipt and any extension notice; they are your proof of the filing date.

The response arrived after the appeal deadline appeared to run. Appeal anyway, immediately, attaching the response and its delivery date, and cite § 542.14(b) and § 542.15(a) — a staff-caused delay in delivery is exactly the kind of thing the Bureau’s instruction says should be verified through staff or SENTRY.

The BP-9 was rejected and the reason is unclear. Section 542.17(b) requires a written notice signed by the coordinator “explaining the reason for rejection.” If the notice is illegible or generic, ask in writing for the specific defect and the resubmission window. If no chance to correct was given, appeal the rejection to the next level under § 542.17(c).

A transfer happened mid-grievance. The institution where the request was first handed to staff stays responsible for logging and answering it (PS 1330.18 at p. 10), but the BP-10 goes to the region covering where the person is confined when the appeal is mailed. Both facts are commonly gotten backwards.

Central Office is taking far longer than 40 days. That is common, and the regulation supplies the answer: after 40 days plus any noticed 20-day extension, the absence of a response is a denial at that level. A live BP-11 does not have to be pending forever before a court filing becomes possible — but whether your specific claim is exhausted is a legal judgment on your record, not a calendar calculation, and it should be made by counsel.

Where to read the rules yourself

Everything on this page comes from two documents, and both are available inside a federal prison. The regulation is 28 C.F.R. part 542 — subpart B, sections 542.10 through 542.19. The Bureau’s implementing instruction is Program Statement 1330.18.

Both are on the electronic law library on the TRULINCS terminals, which under Program Statement 1315.08 now carry the Bureau’s law library materials; our page on the prison law library explains how to get time on those terminals and what they hold. The Bureau also requires each warden to forward any local institution supplement implementing PS 1330.18 to the regional Administrative Remedy Coordinator and to the National Inmate Appeals Administrator (PS 1330.18 at p. 16) — so a local supplement exists at your facility, and it is the document that answers institution-specific questions like whether unit staff have a deadline to answer a BP-8. Ask for it by name.

For the wider context, see prisoner rights in federal prison for what the underlying entitlements are, and BOP administrative remedy program for the policy explainer.

How our firm works an administrative remedy

Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. is a boutique federal criminal defense and appellate firm founded in 2019, with a national federal practice run on an intentionally small caseload. On administrative remedies, the work is research and drafting: identifying the Program Statement or regulation the institution has actually departed from, building the date line, drafting the BP-9 so that every issue you may later need in court is preserved in it, and preparing the BP-10 and BP-11 with the required copies and exhibits.

The person in custody files. That is not a preference, it is § 542.16 — no person may submit a request or appeal on their behalf, and outside assistance does not extend a deadline. What outside help changes is the quality of what gets filed and whether the filing preserves the claim.

Whether an administrative remedy is the right instrument at all is the first question, not the last. Some problems belong on an administrative tort claim instead. Some belong in a § 2241 petition or a challenge to a BOP sentence computation. Some are better addressed through early release planning than through a grievance at all. Legal representation is provided by Elizabeth Franklin-Best and the firm’s attorneys.

To discuss a specific situation, contact the firm at (843) 620-1100 or book an initial consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions About Prison Grievances

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