A Delaware court has dismissed a petition from Augustus Hebrew Evans, Jr., who sought access to funds from the state's opioid settlement. The ruling, issued on June 10, 2026, affects individuals who are incarcerated and have been impacted by the opioid crisis. The decision is significant as it addresses the legal requirements for accessing settlement funds intended for public health initiatives.
The case, Evans v. Delaware Division of Substance Abuse & Mental Health, was filed under docket number N26M-02-090 CLS. Evans argued that he was entitled to a share of the settlement funds to pursue a lawsuit on behalf of incarcerated individuals affected by the opioid epidemic. He filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on February 12, 2026, requesting the court to compel the Delaware Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health to create an application for the funds and grant his request for $25,000.
The Delaware Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss the petition, arguing that Evans did not meet the necessary legal requirements for such a writ. Evans countered with a Response in Opposition, maintaining his position that he deserved access to the funds.
The court's opinion highlighted that for a writ of mandamus to be granted, there must be a clear legal duty owed to the petitioner. The court noted that such a duty must be nondiscretionary or ministerial, meaning it should be defined with precision and certainty, leaving no room for discretion or judgment. Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr. presided over the case.
In its ruling, the court stated, "Petitioner may not recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances because Petitioner has not established a clear legal duty." The court emphasized that the statutory language governing the disbursement of the opioid settlement funds is discretionary. According to 16 Del. C. § 5196(c), the Prescription Opioid Settlement Distribution Commission has the authority to use its judgment on how to best distribute the funds.
As a result, the court granted the Delaware Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health's Motion to Dismiss, effectively denying Evans' request for the funds. The ruling underscores the challenges faced by individuals seeking access to settlement funds, particularly when the governing statutes grant discretion to state agencies.
This ruling has implications for other individuals and groups seeking similar access to settlement funds related to the opioid crisis. It highlights the importance of understanding the legal frameworks surrounding such funds and the necessity of establishing clear legal duties when petitioning for access. The decision may deter future attempts to secure funds from the opioid settlement unless petitioners can demonstrate a clear legal entitlement.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Evans plans to appeal the court's decision. There may also be related cases pending, especially as the opioid crisis continues to affect many communities. The court's ruling sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of discretionary authority in the disbursement of settlement funds, which could influence future cases involving similar claims.