9 . The Court's recent decision in another Title II case, United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 126 S.Ct. 877, 163 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) is also inapplicable here. The Title II claim in that case was asserted by a paraplegic prisoner challenging the conditions of his confinement. Id. at 879. The Court found that the same conduct that allegedly violated Title II also violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 880-81. Therefore, the Court reasoned, the plaintiff's claims for money damages against the State under Title II were based, in large part, on conduct that independently violated the provisions of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 881 (citing Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463, 67 S.Ct. 374, 376, 91 L.Ed. 422 (1947)(<HOLDING>)). No such independent violation of a stated
holding that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment incorporates the eighth amendments guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved holding that 25 years to life sentence under the california three strikes law did not violate the eighth amendments prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment holding that petitioners 25yearstolife sentence under the california three strikes law did not violate the eighth amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment holding execution of the mentally retarded constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment