Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/368

 546US1

Unit: $U14

[08-22-08 15:39:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 151 (2006)

157

Opinion of the Court

II In reversing the dismissal of Goodman’s § 1983 claims, the Eleventh Circuit held that Goodman had alleged actual viola­ tions of the Eighth Amendment by state agents on the grounds set forth above. See App. A to Pet. for Cert. in No. 04–1236, pp. 18a–19a. The State does not contest this holding, see Brief for Respondents 41–44, and we did not grant certiorari to consider the merits of Goodman’s Eighth Amendment claims; we assume without deciding, therefore, that the Eleventh Circuit’s treatment of these claims was correct. Moreover, Goodman urges, and the State does not dispute, that this same conduct that violated the Eighth Amendment also violated Title II of the ADA. See Brief for Petitioner in No. 04–1236, p. 46; Brief for Respondents 41–44. In fact, it is quite plausible that the alleged deliber­ ate refusal of prison ofﬁcials to accommodate Goodman’s disability-related needs in such fundamentals as mobility, hy­ giene, medical care, and virtually all other prison programs constituted “exclu[sion] from participation in or. . . deni[al of] the beneﬁts of ” the prison’s “services, programs, or activ­ ities.” 42 U. S. C. § 12132; see also Yeskey, 524 U. S., at 210 (noting that the phrase “services, programs, or activities” in § 12132 includes recreational, medical, educational, and voca­ tional prison programs). Therefore, Goodman’s claims for money damages against the State under Title II were evi­ dently based, at least in large part, on conduct that independ­ ently violated the provisions of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amend­ ment. See Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459, 463 (1947) (plurality opinion) (the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Eighth Amend­ ment’s guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment). In this respect, Goodman differs from the claimants in our other cases addressing Congress’s ability to abrogate sover­ eign immunity pursuant to its § 5 powers. See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U. S. 509, 543, n. 4 (2004) (Rehnquist, C. J., dissent­ ing) (respondents were not actually denied constitutional