Strong v. Illinois Department of Human Services

Seventh Circuit

Strong v. Illinois Department of Human Services

40 F. App'x 297

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 2002

DocketNo. 01-3574

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 F. App'x 297 (Strong v. Illinois Department of Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Strong v. Illinois Department of Human Services, 40 F. App'x 297 (7th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Jeff Strong sued the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services (now known as the “Department of Human Services”), claiming that the Department denied him assistance in seeking employment in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (“ADA”). The district court dismissed his complaint, concluding that Strong’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Strong appeals, and we affirm.

The Eleventh Amendment immunizes the states against damage suits brought in federal court by their own citizens, unless the state has waived immunity or Congress has validly abrogated the immunity. [298]*298Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363-64, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Will v. Mich. Dep’t. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-70, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Illinois has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Kroll v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 907 (7th Cir.1991).

Nor did Congress validly abrogate the states’ immunity by enacting the ADA. Garrett, 531 U.S. at 372 (states retain Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title I of the ADA). Moreover, though the Supreme Court has not yet decided the issue, we have previously held that actions by private individuals against a state under Title II of the ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment based upon similar reasoning. Walker v. Snyder, 213 F.3d 344, 347 (7th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1190, 121 S.Ct. 1188, 149 L.Ed.2d 104 (2001).

Finally, though in his appellate brief Strong waives any claim made under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court properly construed his pleadings liberally and dismissed any potential claim. Illinois maintains Eleventh Amendment immunity from actions for damages brought by its citizens in federal court under § 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 67-70.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Jeff Strong sued the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services (now known as the “Department of Human Services”), claiming that the Department denied him assistance in seeking employment in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (“ADA”). The district court dismissed his complaint, concluding that Strong’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Strong appeals, and we affirm.

The Eleventh Amendment immunizes the states against damage suits brought in federal court by their own citizens, unless the state has waived immunity or Congress has validly abrogated the immunity. [298]*298Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363-64, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Will v. Mich. Dep’t. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-70, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Illinois has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Kroll v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 907 (7th Cir.1991).

Nor did Congress validly abrogate the states’ immunity by enacting the ADA. Garrett, 531 U.S. at 372 (states retain Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title I of the ADA). Moreover, though the Supreme Court has not yet decided the issue, we have previously held that actions by private individuals against a state under Title II of the ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment based upon similar reasoning. Walker v. Snyder, 213 F.3d 344, 347 (7th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1190, 121 S.Ct. 1188, 149 L.Ed.2d 104 (2001).

Finally, though in his appellate brief Strong waives any claim made under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court properly construed his pleadings liberally and dismissed any potential claim. Illinois maintains Eleventh Amendment immunity from actions for damages brought by its citizens in federal court under § 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 67-70.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 F. App'x 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strong-v-illinois-department-of-human-services-ca7-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack