UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCIS A. SHARRAK,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-20272

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

Defendant was convicted of federal crimes on August 24, 2010, and is currently

held in the Wayne County Jail pending sentencing. On November 2, 2010, Defendant

filed a motion seeking access to certain medical care. Specifically, Defendant asks this

court to order the jail and the U.S. Marshals to transport Defendant to his personal

dentist, to allow family members to bring Defendant’s medications to him, and to

administer a list of medications in specific dosages at set times. On November 16,

2010, the Government filed a response opposing Defendant’s motion on the ground that

it fails to state a claim over which this court may exercise jurisdiction. Because the

court agrees with the Government that it lacks jurisdiction, it will deny Defendant’s

motion.

Defendant challenges only the conditions of his confinement. He alleges neither

that his confinement itself is unconstitutional nor that the conditions are unconstitutional. 

As Defendant has not yet been sentenced, his rights during pretrial detainment are

reviewed under the Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Defendant’s challenge to the
2

conditions of confinement must be considered under the Due Process Clause of the

Fifth Amendment. Id. at 535. The necessity of confinement has already been

determined by this court, so the issue is whether the conditions of confinement effect a

punishment. Id. at 534. In deciding this issue, the court must consider the need for

restrictions and regulations to maintain safety and order within the prison. Id. at 546. 

The court is convinced that the restrictions complained of by Defendant are “reasonably

related to a legitimate governmental objective” and, therefore, do not “amount to

‘punishment.’” Id. at 539.

Were the Wayne County Jail required to meet the medical needs of those

confined therein according to the terms and demands of each individual, this would no

doubt consume a great deal of the available resources. Defendant’s list of medications

includes no fewer than fourteen distinct administrations of medication at three different

times each day. Likewise, Defendant’s request to visit his personal dentist would

require his secure transportation to and from the office, as well as scheduling the

appointment. Both of these requests would cause the facility’s ordinary operations to

grind to a halt if repeated by each person in custody there. Defendant’s third

request—that his family be allowed to bring his medication to him from outside the

jail—would likewise be impracticable as a matter of general application. Without

imputing any improper motives in this particular instance, it is obvious that allowing

those in custody to receive drugs from outside the facility would inevitably lead to a

substantial rise in the presence of contraband within the prison and “would increase the

risk of thefts, gambling, and inmate conflicts.” Id. at 556. All of the restrictions of which
3

Defendant complains are reasonably related to legitimate interests of the jail

administrators in maintaining the order and safety of the facility. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for miscellaneous relief [Dkt. # 97] is

DENIED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 22, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

on this date, November 22, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-20272.SHARRAK.Deny.Miscellaneous.Relief.nkt.wpd