Pesce v. Coppinger
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 2018 federal case, the court granted Pesce preliminary injunction requiring access to methadone in jail, finding likely ADA and 8th Amendment violations where officials refused his prescribed treatment for opioid use disorder.

2018 | Federal Juristiction

Pesce v. Coppinger

Keywords methadone; preliminary injunction; ADA; 8th Amendment; opioid use disorder; jail; prescribed treatment
Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

The 2018 federal court's granting of a preliminary injunction in Pesce mandated jail officials provide methadone access. This decision was predicated on the court's finding of probable violations of both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Eighth Amendment. The basis for the ruling stemmed from the denial of prescribed methadone treatment for the plaintiff's opioid use disorder.

Open Case as PDF

Pesce v. County of Suffolk

The 2018 federal case Pesce v. County of Suffolk involved a preliminary injunction granted to the plaintiff, Mr. Pesce, mandating access to methadone while incarcerated. The court determined there was a strong likelihood of violations of both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Eighth Amendment. These violations stemmed from the denial of Mr. Pesce's prescribed methadone treatment for opioid use disorder.

Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

A 2018 federal court case ruled in favor of an inmate, Pesce, ordering the jail to provide him with methadone. The court believed there was a strong chance the jail violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Eighth Amendment by denying Pesce his prescribed medication for opioid addiction. This preliminary injunction ensured Pesce's continued access to his crucial treatment while the case proceeded.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In 2018, a judge said a jail had to give a man named Pesce his medicine. Pesce needed methadone for his drug problem. The judge thought the jail was breaking the law by not giving him the medicine he needed. The jail's actions might have violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 8th Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

355 F. Supp. 3d 35 (D. Mass. 2018)

Highlights