Case Name: Patricia A. PUGLIESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, United States, Intervenor, v. Jack DILLENBERG, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, husband; Wayne Leblance, in his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Arizona Department of Health Services Office of Human Rights, husband; Arizona, State of, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-07
Citations: 346 F.3d 937
Docket Number: No. 01-16544
Parties: Patricia A. PUGLIESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, United States, Intervenor, v. Jack DILLENBERG, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, husband; Wayne Leblance, in his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Arizona Department of Health Services Office of Human Rights, husband; Arizona, State of, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KLEINFELD, WARDLAW, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 346
Pages: 937–938

Head Matter:
Patricia A. PUGLIESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, United States, Intervenor, v. Jack DILLENBERG, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, husband; Wayne Leblance, in his official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Arizona Department of Health Services Office of Human Rights, husband; Arizona, State of, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-16544.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 2003.
Filed Oct. 7, 2003.
Trisha Kirtley, Phoenix, AZ, for the plaintiff-appellant.
Lisa Kay Hudson, Office of the Attorney General, Liability Management Section, Phoenix, AZ, for the defendants-appellees.
Before KLEINFELD, WARDLAW, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM Opinion; Concurrence by Judge KLEINFELD.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
The State of Arizona validly waived its sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to claims brought pursuant to § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., when it accepted federal Rehabilitation Act funds. See Miranda B. v. Kitzhaber, 328 F.3d 1181, 1185-86 (9th Cir.2003); Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1050-51 (9th Cir.2002); Douglas v. Cal. Dept. of Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 819-21 (9th Cir.2001), rehearing en banc denied at 285 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir.2002). The district court's decision to the contrary, see Pugliese v. Ariz. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 147 F.Supp.2d 985, 989-91 (D.Ariz.2001), which was rendered prior to the decisions cited above, is therefore REVERSED. We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.