USA v. Pepin

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MATTHEW PEPIN,
Defendant.
5:22-CR-50018-JLV
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO PROVIDE
MEDICATIONS (DOC. 36)
Defendant Matthew Pepin filed a motion requesting that the Court order
the Pennington County Jail to provide Defendant with his previously ordered
mental health medications. 	(Doc. 36). 	The United States opposes the motion.
(Doc. 39). 	The pending motion was referred to this Magistrate Judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken’s Standing Order
dated April 1, 2018.
DISCUSSION
18 U.S.C. § 4001 grants the Attorney General the authority to supervise
federal prisoners. 	The Attorney General may enter into agreements with state
and local facilities for the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of prisoners. 18
U.S.C. §§ 4002, 4013. 	Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4086, the “United States
Marshals shall provide for the safe-keeping of any person arrested, or held
under authority of any enactment of Congress pending commitment to an
institution.” 	The Attorney General has delegated to the U.S. Marshals the
Case 5:22-cr-50018-JLV Document 40 Filed 08/19/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
authority for the “acquisition of adequate and suitable detention space, health
care and other services and materials required to support prisoners under the
custody of the U.S. Marshal who are not housed in Federal facilities.” 	28
C.F.R. § 0.111(o). 	Further, the Director of the United States Marshal Service
shall direct and supervise “[s]ustention of custody of Federal prisoners from the
time of their arrest by a marshal or their remand to a marshal by the court,
until the prisoner is committed by order of the court to the custody of the
Attorney General for the service of sentence.” 	28 C.F.R. § 0.111(k). 	Finally, the
detention provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) do not limit the Attorney General’s
discretion to select the appropriate forum for the pre-trial detention of a
defendant awaiting trial.
“[T]he supervision of inmates who are legally confined in federal
institutions are the exclusive prerogatives of the proper administrative
authorities and . . . the federal courts will not interfere with such
administration[.]” 	Haynes v. Harris, 344 F.2d 463, 465 (8th Cir. 1965)
(citations omitted); see Frazier v. Ciccone, 506 F.2d 1022, 1024 (8th Cir. 1974)
(“It is not the function of the courts to run the prisons, or to undertake to
supervise the day-to-day treatment and disciplining of individual inmates;
much must be left to the discretion and good faith of prison administrators.”
(quoting Sawyer v. Sigler, 445 F.2d 818, 819 (8th Cir. 1971)); Garcia v. Steele,
193 F.2d 276, 278 (8th Cir. 1951). 	The Attorney General is vested with the
authority to determine where pretrial detainees should be housed and the
Case 5:22-cr-50018-JLV Document 40 Filed 08/19/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
logistics of providing adequate health care. 	The court will not interfere with
those determinations. 	No good cause appearing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to provide Defendant with his
previously ordered mental health medications is denied.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), any party may seek reconsideration
of this order before the district court upon a showing that the order is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. 	The parties have fourteen (14) days after service
of this order to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),
unless an extension of time for good cause is obtained. 	See FED. R. CRIM. P.
58(g)(2); 59(a). 	Failure to file timely objections will result in the waiver of the
right to appeal questions of fact. 	FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(a). 	Objections must be
timely and specific in order to require review by the district court.
DATED this 19th day of August, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
DANETA WOLLMANN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:22-cr-50018-JLV Document 40 Filed 08/19/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>