the plain meaning of the federal statute.” Dahl at 7. The state plan “directly conflicts with” the federal statute, “which clearly states that providers cannot deny services to a recipient on account of an inability to pay a co-pay.” Id. at 8. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on this issue. Other federal courts have found unlawful state Medicaid plan provisions that allowed providers to refuse services to participants unable to pay a cost-sharing charge, but those courts did not address the issue of past-due co-payments. See Newton-Nations v. Rogers, 316 F.Supp.2d 883 (D.Ariz.2004) (granting preliminary injunction); Spry v. Thompson, 2003 WL 23411996 (D.Or.2003) (Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation), adopted after de novo review, 2004 WL 1050867 (D.Or.2004) (<HOLDING>). The defendants cite Sweeney v. Bane, 996 F.2d
holding that person in 42 usc  1983 does not include states holding that 42 usc  1988 authorizes the grant of attorneys fees for services on appeal though statute does not specifically so provide recognizing that title iii enforcement statute 42 usc  12188 which incorporates the remedies of 42 usc  2000a3a does not include money damages holding that a demonstration project authorized by 42 usc  1315 must include the prohibition against refusal of services stated in section 1396oe holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983