{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-20","fingerprint":"ewai:us:49b4aa","proof":"sha256:344aaf0117d22159e6eace1fac2ec59ef5b791742a9f90af7ffe39b012e4fbe9","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"File Name: 26a0280p.06","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7","para_8"]},{"title":"STATE OF MICHIGAN; MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"CORRECTIONS; BUREAU OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES;","paragraphs":["para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24"]},{"title":"No. 25-1140","paragraphs":["para_26","para_27"]},{"title":"Argued: July 29, 2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Decided and Filed: October 9, 2026","paragraphs":["para_30","para_31"]},{"title":"COUNSEL","paragraphs":["para_33"]},{"title":"Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Christopher Alex, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN","paragraphs":["para_35","para_36"]},{"title":"LLP, Washington, D.C., Samuel Weiss, RIGHTS BEHIND BARS, Washington, D.C., for","paragraphs":["para_38","para_39","para_40"]},{"title":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 2","paragraphs":["para_42"]},{"title":"OPINION","paragraphs":["para_44"]},{"title":"JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Kushawn Miles-El is a former Michigan Department of","paragraphs":["para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49"]},{"title":"Amendment. Miles-El also claimed that MDOC and other state entities (State Defendants)","paragraphs":["para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55"]},{"title":"Miles-El was incarcerated in MDOC prisons for more than 30 years. In 2017, MDOC","paragraphs":["para_57"]},{"title":"Miles-El, he began experiencing “severe allergic reactions” when he would come into close","paragraphs":["para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65"]},{"title":"MDOC later transferred Miles-El to Chippewa, another facility that housed dogs. Miles-","paragraphs":["para_67","para_68","para_69"]},{"title":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 3","paragraphs":["para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75"]},{"title":"Id. The provider also explained that animal dander would always aggravate1 asthma. The","paragraphs":["para_77"]},{"title":"Miles-El appealed at Step II. He complained that the move had not resolved the problem","paragraphs":["para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82"]},{"title":"Miles-El appealed again at Step III, reasserting his earlier complaints and this time","paragraphs":["para_84"]},{"title":"Office of Legal Affairs denied the appeal, concluding that Miles-El’s concerns had been","paragraphs":["para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90"]},{"title":"Miles-El was transferred to Alger in 2020. He claims that Pancheri transferred him to","paragraphs":["para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95"]},{"title":"Correctional Facilities Administration oversees the transfer of all prisoners between MDOC","paragraphs":["para_97","para_98"]},{"title":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 4","paragraphs":["para_100","para_101","para_102"]},{"title":"At Alger, Miles-El filed an ADA accommodation request seeking placement away from","paragraphs":["para_104"]},{"title":"MDOC policy, Miles-El had to raise his medical concerns with Health Services, which had no","paragraphs":["para_106","para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"Miles-El makes no allegation that, while at Chippewa or Alger, he ever obtained the","paragraphs":["para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116"]},{"title":"Op., PageID 502. As to the ADA and RA claims, the court concluded that inadequate medical","paragraphs":["para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122"]},{"title":"We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Finley v. Huss, 102","paragraphs":["para_124","para_125"]},{"title":"56(a). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most","paragraphs":["para_127"]},{"title":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 5","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133"]},{"title":"Miles-El advances several arguments on appeal. He first challenges the grant of","paragraphs":["para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138"]},{"title":"A. Eighth Amendment Claim","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Miles-El contends that Pancheri was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs","paragraphs":["para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147"]},{"title":"To overcome qualified immunity, Miles-El must show that Pancheri “violated a statutory","paragraphs":["para_149"]},{"title":"Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012). A right is clearly established if “every","paragraphs":["para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154"]},{"title":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 6","paragraphs":["para_156"]},{"title":"Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 101–06 (1976), which state general Eighth Amendment principles. But","paragraphs":["para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161"]},{"title":"The closest cases Miles-El cites for clearly established law are two decisions involving","paragraphs":["para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171"]},{"title":"Neither case clearly established that the Eighth Amendment required Pancheri to transfer","paragraphs":["para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180"]},{"title":"El’s exposure to dogs in particular would constitute an infliction of “cruel and unusual","paragraphs":["para_182","para_183","para_184"]},{"title":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 7","paragraphs":["para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197"]},{"title":"Therefore, Pancheri is entitled to qualified immunity on Miles-El’s Eighth Amendment","paragraphs":["para_199"]},{"title":"B. ADA and RA Claims","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the RA both “prohibit public or federally funded","paragraphs":["para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210"]},{"title":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 8","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1. Failure to Accommodate","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"To prevail under a failure-to-accommodate theory, Miles-El must show that a transfer to","paragraphs":["para_214","para_215"]},{"title":"We examine Title I principles to determine whether Miles-El showed that his transfer","paragraphs":["para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220"]},{"title":"Huber, No. 21-3202, 2021 WL 5411215, at *11 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2021). In Marble, for","paragraphs":["para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225"]},{"title":"Under Title I, an employer may require medical documentation showing that an","paragraphs":["para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233"]},{"title":"Like Tchankpa’s documentation, Miles-El’s chronic-care report documented his","paragraphs":["para_235","para_236"]},{"title":"1-1, Chronic Care Report, PageID 21. But it did not explain how severely the exposure to","paragraphs":["para_238","para_239"]},{"title":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 9","paragraphs":["para_241","para_242"]},{"title":"The Title I principle we apply above is equally warranted under Title II. We have","paragraphs":["para_244","para_245"]},{"title":"County, 875 F.3d 229, 236–37 (5th Cir. 2017)). But knowledge of a disability described in","paragraphs":["para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259"]},{"title":"Miles-El’s failure-to-accommodate claim fails, therefore, because he did not sufficiently","paragraphs":["para_261","para_262"]},{"title":"2. Intentional Discrimination","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"To prevail on an intentional-discrimination theory, a plaintiff must show that the","paragraphs":["para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269"]},{"title":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 10","paragraphs":["para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280"]},{"title":"C. Eleventh Amendment and Supplemental Jurisdiction Over State-Law Claims","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Because we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Pancheri","paragraphs":["para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"File Name: 26a0280p.06","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"KUSHAWN S. MILES-EL,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"STATE OF MICHIGAN; MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"CORRECTIONS; BUREAU OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES;","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"ADAM PANCHERI; SARAH SCHROEDER; DEAN POTILA,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Defendants-Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"┐","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"┘","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"No. 25-1140","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"No. 2:23-cv-00031—Jane M. Beckering, District Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Argued: July 29, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"Decided and Filed: October 9, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Before: McKEAGUE, SUTTON, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"COUNSEL","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"ARGUED: Steven D. Marcus, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP,","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Christopher Alex, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Steven D. Marcus,","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Shay Dvoretzky, Parker Rider-Longmaid, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM,","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"LLP, Washington, D.C., Samuel Weiss, RIGHTS BEHIND BARS, Washington, D.C., for","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Appellant. Joshua S. Smith, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing,","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"Michigan, for Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":">","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 2","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Kushawn Miles-El is a former Michigan Department of","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"Corrections (MDOC) prisoner with asthma and an alleged allergy to dogs. While incarcerated,","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"he sued over his exposure to dogs at MDOC facilities. He claimed that Prison Counselor Adam","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Pancheri’s failure to isolate him from dog dander violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"of “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” as applied to the States by the Fourteenth","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Amendment. Miles-El also claimed that MDOC and other state entities (State Defendants)","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Act (ADA), the Michigan Constitution, and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Act. Pancheri and State Defendants moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"that motion. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Miles-El was incarcerated in MDOC prisons for more than 30 years. In 2017, MDOC","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"transferred him to Muskegon, a facility that housed dogs for training purposes. According to","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Miles-El, he began experiencing “severe allergic reactions” when he would come into close","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"contact with dogs. R. 1, Compl., PageID 9. He alleges that he suffered watery eyes, skin rashes,","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"asthma attacks, chest congestion, difficulty breathing, and respiratory and sinus infections. He","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"alerted MDOC officials to his symptoms, and his medical provider completed a report (chronic-","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"care report) noting that he had “severe persistent” asthma that was aggravated by “animals,","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"change in weather, exercise and pollen.” R. 1-1, Chronic Care Report, PageID 21. This report","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"also noted that inhalers relieved his symptoms, and the provider prescribed several respiratory","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"treatments, including steroids, inhalers, a nebulizer, and a nasal spray.","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"MDOC later transferred Miles-El to Chippewa, another facility that housed dogs. Miles-","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"El claimed that exposure to dogs caused asthma attacks and allergic reactions. He then invoked","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"MDOC’s three-step grievance process, under which a prisoner files a grievance at Step I, may","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"appeal a denial at Step II, and may appeal once more at Step III.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 3","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"At Step I, Miles-El complained that he was exposed to “animal[s], dust, lint, particles,","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"dander, wool, ragweed, pollen” and “other” things to which he had “severe” allergies. R. 1-2,","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"Step I Grievance Response, PageID 22. A Chippewa counselor contacted a medical provider,","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"who confirmed that Miles-El had asthma but explained that his alleged dog dander allergy “ha[d]","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"not been confirmed” because no documentation supported it beyond a “generalized description.”","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"Id. The provider also explained that animal dander would always aggravate1 asthma. The","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"counselor decided to move Miles-El to the East side of Chippewa, where dogs were not allowed.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"Miles-El appealed at Step II. He complained that the move had not resolved the problem","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"because he still had to visit the West side, where dogs were permitted, for programming. He also","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"complained that the East side was more restrictive. The Chippewa Warden denied the appeal,","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"concluding that the Step I response was satisfactory and noting that Miles-El’s medical","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"documents did not mention a dog dander allergy.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Miles-El appealed again at Step III, reasserting his earlier complaints and this time","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"requesting transfer “to a facility without dogs.” R. 1-3, Step III Grievance, PageID 24. The","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"Office of Legal Affairs denied the appeal, concluding that Miles-El’s concerns had been","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"considered and investigated and that the Step II decision was proper.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"After Miles-El was elected “Unit Block Representative” at Chippewa, R. 1, Compl.,","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"PageID 8 ¶ 37, he alleges that Officer Adam Pancheri, a prison counselor, responded angrily.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Miles-El claims that Pancheri threatened to transfer him to Alger, another MDOC facility, so that","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"“someone else [could] deal with him and his grievances and complaints.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Miles-El was transferred to Alger in 2020. He claims that Pancheri transferred him to","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Alger, where he was “guaranteed” to be around dogs. Appellant Br. at 11. However,","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"Chippewa’s Transfer Coordinator, Debra Petersen, declared that Pancheri did not select Miles-El","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"for a transfer, lacked the authority to do so, and was responsible only for “prepar[ing] a security","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"classification screen.” R. 34-7, Petersen Decl., PageID 378. According to Petersen, the","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Correctional Facilities Administration oversees the transfer of all prisoners between MDOC","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"1The report indicates that dogs were a “mitigating” factor, but in context, the provider clearly meant to say","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"“aggravating.”","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 4","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"facilities and Miles-El was transferred to accommodate bedspace needs. Id. at 377. Pancheri","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"likewise claimed that he lacked authority to transfer Miles-El or determine where MDOC would","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"transfer a prisoner.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"At Alger, Miles-El filed an ADA accommodation request seeking placement away from","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"housing units with dogs. Deputy Warden Dean Potila denied the request, explaining that, under","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"MDOC policy, Miles-El had to raise his medical concerns with Health Services, which had no","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"record that he had a dog allergy. Potila further explained that he would submit a transfer request","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"if Miles-El obtained a medical detail from a healthcare provider establishing his medical need to","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"be housed away from dogs.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Miles-El makes no allegation that, while at Chippewa or Alger, he ever obtained the","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"medical detail Potila required. Instead, proceeding pro se, Miles-El sued Pancheri, State","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Defendants, and other prison officials, asserting claims under the Eighth Amendment, the ADA,","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"the RA, and state law. The primary claims on appeal are his Eighth Amendment claim against","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"Pancheri and ADA and RA claims against State Defendants. The district court granted summary","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"judgment to the relevant defendants on those claims. As to the Eighth Amendment claim, the","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"court concluded that Pancheri was not deliberately indifferent because prison officials consulted","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"medical staff, who indicated that Miles-El did not need a medical transfer. R. 48, Second MSJ","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"Op., PageID 502. As to the ADA and RA claims, the court concluded that inadequate medical","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"treatment is not actionable under either statute and that Miles-El failed to show that he was","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"denied the benefits of prison services or programs. The court also declined to exercise","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"supplemental jurisdiction over Miles-El’s state-law claims.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"Miles-El timely appealed.","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Finley v. Huss, 102","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"F.4th 789, 804 (6th Cir. 2024). Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no disputes of","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"material fact and the moving party is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"56(a). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"favorable to Miles-El, as the nonmovant, and we “draw all reasonable inferences” in his favor.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 5","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"Lawson v. Creely, 137 F.4th 404, 411 (6th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted). Also, “we may affirm","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"on any grounds supported by the record, even if they are different from the grounds the district","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"court relied upon in reaching its summary judgment decision below.” Gammons v. Adroit Med.","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Sys., Inc., 91 F.4th 820, 825 (6th Cir. 2024).","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"Miles-El advances several arguments on appeal. He first challenges the grant of","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"summary judgment to Pancheri on his Eighth Amendment claim. He next challenges the grant of","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"summary judgment to State Defendants on his ADA and RA claims. He also argues that the","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"Eleventh Amendment does not bar his ADA and RA claims and that the district court abused its","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"A. Eighth Amendment Claim","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Miles-El contends that Pancheri was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"by failing to transfer him to a prison without a dog program. He argues that a genuine dispute","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"over Pancheri’s transfer authority precludes summary judgment. But that alleged factual issue is","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"not material if summary judgment may be affirmed on a legal ground independent of the factual","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"issue’s resolution. Linden v. Piotrowski, 619 F. App’x 495, 501 (6th Cir. 2015). Here,","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"Pancheri’s assertion of qualified immunity is such an independent legal ground. The district","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"court did not rule on qualified immunity, but Pancheri raised this protection below and reasserts","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"it on appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"To overcome qualified immunity, Miles-El must show that Pancheri “violated a statutory","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012). A right is clearly established if “every","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. (cleaned","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"up). The right asserted here by Miles-El is that an officer violates the Eighth Amendment “by","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"declining to transfer a prisoner with asthma to a facility without a dog program or by transferring","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"that prisoner to a facility with a dog program.” Appellee Br. at 42–43; see Appellant Br. at 59.","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 6","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"Miles-El first relies on Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994), and Estelle v.","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 101–06 (1976), which state general Eighth Amendment principles. But","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"cases stating only general principles are not enough to deprive an officer of qualified immunity.","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"See, e.g., Richardson v. Falk, 184 F.4th 833, 840 (6th Cir. 2026). A case must specifically","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"address the issue presented to be considered clearly established law on that issue. White v.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017).","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"The closest cases Miles-El cites for clearly established law are two decisions involving","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"prisoners exposed to tobacco smoke. See Hunt v. Reynolds, 974 F.2d 734 (6th Cir. 1992); see","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). But those cases concern situations afield from","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"the facts here. Hunt held that forcing a prisoner to share his cell with an inmate who smokes","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"violates the Eighth Amendment’s objective component when the prisoner has a “serious medical","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"need for a smoke-free environment.” 974 F.2d at 736. That is because the Eighth Amendment","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"may protect against confinement conditions that pose a “serious health threat” but not those that","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"cause “mere discomfort or inconvenience.” Id. at 735 (citation omitted). Helling then clarified","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"that a risk of future harm from tobacco smoke can constitute a serious health threat. 509 U.S. at","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"32–35.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Neither case clearly established that the Eighth Amendment required Pancheri to transfer","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"Miles-El to a prison without a dog program. In Hunt, despite the prisoners’ pulmonary and heart","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"disease, we remanded to determine whether tobacco-smoke exposure posed a sufficiently serious","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"threat to their health. 974 F.2d at 735–36. Here, Miles-El’s chronic-care report did not","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"specifically address any dog dander allergy. It documented only his asthma generally and","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"identified “animals” as one of several aggravating factors, along with “change in weather,","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"exercise and pollen.” R. 1-1, Chronic Care Report, PageID 21. Such a broad description of","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"Mile-El’s asthma, encompassing a list of things that everyone encounters in life, gives us pause","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"before concluding that the report could have given prison officials sufficient notice that Miles-","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"El’s exposure to dogs in particular would constitute an infliction of “cruel and unusual","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"punishment[].” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Even focusing only on the mention of “animals,” the","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"report did not indicate how severely animal exposure affected him or what kinds of animals or","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"degree of exposure triggered his symptoms. And notably, the report also indicated that inhalers","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 7","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"relieved his symptoms. That was the very remedy that prison officials provided. Also, after","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"Miles-El complained about exposure to dogs, a counselor contacted a healthcare provider, who","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"said that Miles-El had no confirmed dog allergy, explained that animal dander always aggravates","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"asthma, but did not advise complete separation from dogs as the only available treatment for","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Mile-El’s condition. R. 1-2, Step I Grievance at URF, PageID 22. These circumstances contrast","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"with those in Hunt, where there was confirmed linkage between the prisoners’ disease and","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"tobacco-smoke exposure and eliminating that exposure was the only available means of","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"addressing their health problems. See 974 F.2d at 735–36. Therefore, Hunt did not clearly","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"establish that housing Miles-El at a prison with a dog program posed a sufficiently serious health","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"threat to require his transfer. Nor did Helling, which established only that sufficiently serious","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"risks of tobacco-smoke exposure to future health can implicate the Eighth Amendment. 509 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"at 32–35.","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"Therefore, Pancheri is entitled to qualified immunity on Miles-El’s Eighth Amendment","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"claim.","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"B. ADA and RA Claims","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the RA both “prohibit public or federally funded","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"entities, including prisons, from discriminating against disabled individuals while operating","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"services or programs.” Finley, 102 F.4th at 819–20. We typically “evaluate ADA and RA","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"claims together.” Id. at 820. To succeed on his ADA and RA claims, Miles-El must show that","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"“(1) he has a qualifying disability, (2) he is otherwise qualified for a program, and (3) he was","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under a","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"program because of his disability.” Id. He may establish the third element through proof either","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"of a failure to accommodate or of intentional discrimination, and to succeed on his RA claim,","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"Miles-El must also show that MDOC officials discriminated against him “solely” because of his","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"disability. Id. We address the contested elements of these claims below.","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 8","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"1. Failure to Accommodate","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"To prevail under a failure-to-accommodate theory, Miles-El must show that a transfer to","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"a dog-free facility was “necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of [his] disability.” Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"821 (citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"We examine Title I principles to determine whether Miles-El showed that his transfer","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"was necessary. We have often considered Title I principles that cover employment and Title III","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"principles that cover places of public accommodation when resolving failure-to-accommodate","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"claims under Title II. See Marble v. Tennessee, 767 F. App’x 647, 650–52 (6th Cir. 2019);","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Johnson v. Dobbins, No. 22-5310, 2022 WL 16824202, at *3 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022); Peroli v.","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"Huber, No. 21-3202, 2021 WL 5411215, at *11 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2021). In Marble, for","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"instance, we applied the Title I principle that a plaintiff bears the initial burden to request an","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"accommodation because a covered entity should not have to speculate about the plaintiff’s","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"limitations or need for accommodation. 767 F. App’x at 652 (citing Gantt v. Wilson Sporting","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042, 1046–47 (6th Cir. 1998)).","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"Under Title I, an employer may require medical documentation showing that an","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"employee’s disability requires the requested accommodation. Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Grp.,","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Inc., 951 F.3d 805, 812–14 (6th Cir. 2020); Kennedy v. Superior Printing Co., 215 F.3d 650, 656","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"(6th Cir. 2000). In Tchankpa, an employee with a shoulder injury requested to work from home","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"three days per week. 951 F.3d at 809–10. His medical documentation confirmed the injury but","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"did not explain why it required him to work from home. Id. at 813–14. The employer requested","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"medical documentation establishing that connection, and when Tchankpa failed to provide it, we","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"held that the employer had no duty to grant the requested accommodation. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"Like Tchankpa’s documentation, Miles-El’s chronic-care report documented his","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"disability but not why that disability required his requested accommodation. As noted, the report","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"indicated that he had asthma and identified “animals” as one of several aggravating factors. R.","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"1-1, Chronic Care Report, PageID 21. But it did not explain how severely the exposure to","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"animals affected his asthma or why that exposure required him to be housed away from dogs,","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"and, again, the report indicated that inhalers relieved his symptoms, and those inhalers had been","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 9","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"provided. MDOC therefore requested medical documentation showing why Miles-El’s disability","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"required him to be housed away from dogs. Miles-El never provided it.2","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"The Title I principle we apply above is equally warranted under Title II. We have","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"recognized under Title II that a public entity’s duty to accommodate requires “an awareness of a","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"plaintiff’s specific needs.” Johnson, 2022 WL 16824202, at *3 (citing Windham v. Harris","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"County, 875 F.3d 229, 236–37 (5th Cir. 2017)). But knowledge of a disability described in","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"general terms does not always reveal specific needs. More medical documentation may be","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"needed to identify those needs and allow the entity to determine “whether a need for the","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"accommodation exists.” Kennedy, 215 F.3d at 656 (citation omitted). In Johnson, we relied on","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Windham, which recognized that a public entity must know the","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"specific needs resulting from a plaintiff’s disability to determine whether a requested","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"accommodation is necessary. Johnson, 2022 WL 16824202, at *3. The Windham court","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"explained that “[m]ere knowledge of the disability is not enough”; the public entity must also","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"know the limitations resulting from that disability. 875 F.3d at 236–37. Without that","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"information, “it would be impossible for the [service] provider to ascertain whether an","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"accommodation is needed at all.” Id. at 236. Therefore, unless the disability, its resulting","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"limitations, and the necessary accommodation are “open, obvious, and apparent,” the plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"must identify his disability and its resulting limitations to the public entity. Id. at 237 (cleaned","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"up).","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"Miles-El’s failure-to-accommodate claim fails, therefore, because he did not sufficiently","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"document a health condition that required the prison to accommodate him by completely","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"isolating him from dogs.","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"2. Intentional Discrimination","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"To prevail on an intentional-discrimination theory, a plaintiff must show that the","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"defendant had a discriminatory motive. Finley, 102 F.4th at 823. Because Miles-El has not","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"2Miles-El fares no better to the extent he relies on a dog allergy distinct from his asthma. Unlike his","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"asthma, Miles-El’s dog allergy was not medically documented. Indeed, a health care provider explained that his dog","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"dander allergy had not been confirmed. MDOC therefore could require additional medical information before","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"granting a transfer on that basis as well.","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"No. 25-1140 Miles-El v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 10","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"offered direct evidence of State Defendants’ discriminatory motive, we consider only his indirect","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"evidence under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. See id. at 823–24. That","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"rubric requires that he first establish a prima facie case by showing that State Defendants “took","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"action” against him “because of [his] disability.” Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338,","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"357 (6th Cir. 2015). In other words, he must show discriminatory animus. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"Miles-El points to no evidence connecting either his transfer to Alger or the denial of his","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"requested transfer to discriminatory animus based on his disability. He therefore has not","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"established a prima facie case.","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"Because both his failure-to-accommodate and intentional-discrimination theories fail,","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"Miles-El has not established the third element of his ADA and RA claims.","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"C. Eleventh Amendment and Supplemental Jurisdiction Over State-Law Claims","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"Because we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Pancheri","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"on Miles-El’s Eighth Amendment claim and to State Defendants on his ADA and RA claims, we","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"need not address whether the Eleventh Amendment bars Miles-El’s claims. And because no","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"federal claims remain, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"supplemental jurisdiction over Miles-El’s state-law claims.","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"IV.","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"For these reasons, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.","paragraph_id":"para_288"}],"word_count":3324,"cites":["566 U.S. 658","511 U.S. 825","429 U.S. 97","580 U.S. 73","509 U.S. 25","102\nF.4th 789","137 F.4th 404","91 F.4th 820","184 F.4th 833","974 F.2d 734","143 F.3d 1042","951 F.3d 805","215 F.3d 650","875 F.3d 229","798 F.3d 338"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"eaebb68775f463a4c1ecfb56829be3439ad3a0a35967d56bd6db03d3baa2e734","source_url":"http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0280p-06.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-20T00:08:45.907+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19","name":"United States v. Reina Chirinos de Urena","decided":"2026-10-19","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19"},{"id":"us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16","name":"Appalachian Voices v. TVA","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16","name":"United States v. Antoine Cook","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15","name":"Paula Bailey v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09","name":"Ifeoma Ada Chinweoke Ojukwu v. Todd Lyons","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","name":"Lexon Insurance Company v. James Justice, II","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08","name":"Jennifer Byrum v. Knox County, Tenn.","decided":"2026-10-08","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08","name":"United States v. Charles Mixon","decided":"2026-10-08","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08"},{"id":"us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07","name":"United States v. Nathan Goddard","decided":"2026-10-07","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-3300-2026-10-01","name":"William Fambrough v. City of E. Cleveland, Ohio","decided":"2026-10-01","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-3300-2026-10-01","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-3300-2026-10-01","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-3300-2026-10-01"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"eaebb68775f463a4c1ecfb56829be3439ad3a0a35967d56bd6db03d3baa2e734","recomputed_sha256":"eaebb68775f463a4c1ecfb56829be3439ad3a0a35967d56bd6db03d3baa2e734","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-20T18:49:07.347Z"}},"hash":"sha256:344aaf0117d22159e6eace1fac2ec59ef5b791742a9f90af7ffe39b012e4fbe9","version":"legal-2026-10-20","expires":"2026-10-21T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-20+legal-2026-10-20+2026-10-20T18:33:17","content_hash":"sha256:344aaf0117d22159e6eace1fac2ec59ef5b791742a9f90af7ffe39b012e4fbe9","revalidate_after":"2026-10-20T19:49:07.863Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-ae82598bda55d7119baf566aa2dc6f84","response_hash":"sha256:344aaf0117d22159e6eace1fac2ec59ef5b791742a9f90af7ffe39b012e4fbe9"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:57:13.042Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca6-25-1140-2026-10-09&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":16552}}