Document Category: ADA

This motion seeks the immediate transfer of a pretrial detainee experiencing dangerous withdrawal symptoms to a hospital or other medical facility capable of providing adequate detoxification treatment. It relies on social science to explain that unmanaged withdrawal can cause seizures, dehydration, cardiac complications, hallucinations, and death, and argues that transfer is necessary when the detention facility cannot provide the level of monitoring and medical intervention required by the client’s condition. In the alternative, the motion requests release on GPS monitoring so the client can participate in inpatient treatment. The motion argues that failure to provide adequate withdrawal treatment violates the Fourteenth Amendment right of pretrial detainees to necessary medical care and the ADA, because substance use disorder is a qualifying disability requiring reasonable accommodation and access to treatment. It distinguishes an emergency request for transfer from a civil damages action, contends that heightened civil-litigation standards do not govern the requested relief, and cites medical standards, correctional regulations, and cases recognizing courts’ authority to protect detainees from life-threatening deficiencies in jail medical care.

This motion argues that courts must provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA and due process principles to ensure defendants with disabilities can meaningfully participate in their defense. It explains that court proceedings are protected services under Title II and that failure to accommodate—such as denying additional time, communication support, or assistive technology—can render a defendant effectively absent from trial. Relying on Tennessee v. Lane and related authority, the motion provides a framework for securing accommodations necessary during court proceedings for clients with disabilities.

This motion argues that jails and pretrial detention facilities must provide reasonable accommodations under Title II of the ADA to ensure equal access to programs, services, and basic conditions of confinement. It explains that denial of accommodations—such as medical care, accessible housing, or participation in programming—constitutes unlawful discrimination and can exacerbate physical and mental health conditions. Relying on Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey and related cases, the motion emphasizes that ADA protections fully apply in custodial settings and impose an affirmative duty to provide accommodations for incarcerated individuals with disabilities.