sued by their own citizens, the Supreme Court has long held that the Eleventh Amendment also bars suits by citizens of the state being sued. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99, 104 S.Ct. 900, 907, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472-73, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 2945-46, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987)(plurality opinion). There are of course exceptions to this general rule. For example: a state may consent to suit in federal court; a state may waive its right to assert immunity; or the nature of the suit may determine whether sovereign immunity is available. See, e.g., Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1360-61, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)(<HOLDING>); Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 447-48, 2
holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court holding that the statute must specify the states intention to subject itself to suit in federal court in order to constitute a waiver holding that any suit filed in state court alleging violations of a provision of a labor contract must be brought under  301 and be resolved by federal law holding that a states consent to suit in federal court must be unequivocally expressed holding that the united states may bring suit against a state to enforce compliance with federal law