Case Name: Greg A. HORTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of ALASKA WILDWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-05
Citations: 477 F. App'x 472
Docket Number: No. 11-35683
Parties: Greg A. HORTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of ALASKA WILDWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 477
Pages: 472–473

Head Matter:
Greg A. HORTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of ALASKA WILDWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-35683.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 30, 2012.
Filed Sept. 5, 2012.
Sonja Kathleen Redmond, Law Office of Sonja Redmond, Soldotna, AK, pro se.
Jessica Leeah Srader, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Alaska Attorney General, Juneau, AK, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Greg Horton appeals from the district court's dismissal of his suit against Defendant State of Alaska Wildwood Correctional Center. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The Supreme Court has already decided the question before us, and has held that Congress did not validly abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title I of the ADA. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001).
United States v. Georgia, in which the Supreme Court held that Congress had validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity through Title II of the ADA, does not apply to this case. 546 U.S. 151, 159, 126 S.Ct. 877, 163 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). The Supreme Court has explained the "significant differences" between Title I and Title II of the ADA, and noted that Title II, unlike Title I, looks to enforce a multitude of very basic constitutional rights, like the right of access to the courts. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 522-23, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004). Thus, Georgia does not apply to this case.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.