OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Raymond Russell, Jr. brings this action against Defendants State of New York (the “State”) and State of New York Department of Correction and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), alleging claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12131, et seq., and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, among other statutes, for Defendants’ alleged refusal to accommodate Plaintiff’s needs as a deaf individual while he was serving his parole. Before me is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the majority of Plaintiff’s claims on the ground that they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because I find that (1) Congress has not abrogated Defendants’ sovereign immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s ADA claims, and (2) the State is not a proper party to Plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claims, Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss is GRANTED. I. Background1 Plaintiff is a profoundly deaf individual who communicates primarily in American Sign Language (“ASL”). (Compl. 1.) He has limited proficiency in English and cannot effectively communicate by reading lips. (Id. 2.) On October 26, 2012, Plaintiff was released from police custody and placed on parole until October 26, 2017. (Id. 1.) Defendant DOCCS is the department of Defendant State responsible for the care, confinement, and rehabilitation of inmates. (Id. 1.) During Plaintiff’s parole, Plaintiff was repeatedly denied the assistance of an ASL interpreter when he met with his parole officers, despite his “clear inability to communicate effectively without one.” (Id. 3.) Plaintiff made multiple requests for an interpreter; nevertheless, he was not provided with an interpreter for any of his meetings with parole officers during the entire length of his parole. (Id.
2, 8.) When Plaintiff would request an interpreter, his parole officers would either ignore his requests or instruct Plaintiff to write his thoughts down in order to communicate. (Id. 2.) Because of Plaintiff’s inability to effectively communicate without the assistance of a qualified ASL interpreter, Plaintiff “did not [understand] the details of his parole, the limitations on his behavior imposed by his parole, and the length of his parole.” (Id.
