alcohol user and denied HCV treatment because of that claimed disability based on the ASAT Requirement. Defendants contend plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the statute. 1. Capacity First, any claim against Dr. Wright in his individual capacity must be dismissed because Section 504 does not provide for individual capacity suits against state officials. Garda, 280 F.3d at 107; 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (statute’s non-discrimination requirements only apply to entities receiving federal funds). As for the claim against Dr. Wright in his official capacity and DOCCS, it is well-established that sovereign immunity has been validly abrogated under Section 504 and the claim may proceed subject to the analysis below. See, e.g., Degrafinreid v. Ricks, 417 F.Supp.2d 403, 414 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (<HOLDING>). 2. Merits of Section 504 Claim Similar to
holding that state defendant waived eleventh amendment immunity to a federal claim by removing to federal court holding the language of  5518e insufficient as a waiver of eleventh amendment immunity to federal claims in federal court holding that the fourteenth amendment was not an unequivocal expression of congressional intent to abrogate states immunity and reversing district courts rejection of new yorks eleventh amendment argument holding that the nyshrl does not waive the new yorks eleventh amendment immunity to suit in federal court holding that new yorks continued acceptance of federal funds after garrett 531 us 356 121 sct 955 is a knowing relinquishment of its eleventh amendment immunity