Summary
Within a 2025 federal district court proceeding, a confined individual asserted violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Eighth Amendment. These claims stemmed from the denial of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). While the court rejected the motion for a preliminary injunction, it permitted claims concerning ADA injunctive relief and deliberate indifference to advance.
Summary
In a district court case from 2025, an incarcerated individual initiated legal proceedings, alleging violations of both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Eighth Amendment. These claims arose from the denial of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for the individual's Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). While the court declined to issue a preliminary injunction, a type of temporary court order, it did allow the claims seeking injunctive relief under the ADA and the deliberate indifference claims to move forward.
Summary
In a 2025 district court case, a person in prison claimed that their rights were violated under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Eighth Amendment. These claims stemmed from the prison's refusal to provide Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). While the court did not grant an immediate temporary order (preliminary injunction), it did allow the parts of the case concerning ADA-related orders and allegations of deliberate indifference to continue.
Summary
In a court case from 2025, a person in prison said the prison broke laws. The prisoner claimed the prison did not follow the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 8th Amendment. This was because the prison did not give them medicine for a drug problem. The judge first said no to a quick order for the prison to change their practices. But the judge did say that the claims about the ADA and the prison not caring could still be looked at.