Background
Plaintiff Matthew Phillip Solan appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction regarding his request for a service animal, Foxy II, while confined at a state hospital in Arizona. The district court had denied the motion for lack of a likelihood of success on the merits.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit assumed the parties’ familiarity with the facts and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The panel concluded the district court did not apply an overly restrictive standard to the reasonable-accommodation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Regarding the service animal, the court found the district court did not improperly impose a medical necessity test but rather applied the ADA’s regulatory text to determine if the accommodation was necessary to prevent discrimination. The appellate court held that factual findings were not clearly erroneous because the district court properly relied on statements from a state psychiatrist finding the animal would hinder treatment. Additionally, the court found the district court properly relied on the plaintiff’s alleged out-of-court statements to conclude the accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of the state’s services. The panel also affirmed the striking of the motion for judicial notice, noting any error was harmless as the elements of issue preclusion were not met. The court declined to reach arguments regarding the Prison Litigation Reform Act as the issue was unnecessary to the decision.
What it means going forward
The decision affirms the denial of the preliminary injunction, meaning the plaintiff remains without the requested service animal accommodation pending further proceedings or a final judgment.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download