state prisoner Albert Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and statutory claims in connection with the processing of his administrative grievances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hayes’ Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) claims against defendants in their individual capacities because Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the RA do not authorize claims against State officials in their individual capacities. See Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1156 (9th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly dismissed Hayes’
holding title ix does not support an action against official in an individual capacity holding that a state officer sued in his individual capacity may be held personally liable for damages under 42 usc  1983 based upon actions taken in his official capacity holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983 holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea holding that a plaintiff cannot bring an action under 42 usc  1983 against a state official in her individual capacity to vindicate rights created by title ii of the ada or section 504 of the rehabilitation act