a Notice of Determination dismissing the complaint on August 27, 2009. (Id. at 2.) 3 . It is somewhat unclear from the plaintiffs argument whether he considers the state of Tennessee to truly be a defendant in the suit. (See Docket No. 11 at 5-6) (suggesting that the defendants’ motion misses the point by asserting that " ‘a state may not be sued' .... because it fails to address the controlling issue at bar as to whether or not the Defendants are agents of the state”) (emphasis added). 4 . Although the State receives federal funds reimbursing it for its administration of certain Social Security Act programs by DHS, this is irrelevant with respect to this factor. See Ernst, 427 F.3d at 359 (citing Regents of Univ. of Cal v. Doe., 519 U.S. 425, 431, 117 S.Ct. 900, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997) (<HOLDING>)). 5 . The court's own research did not reveal
holding that new claims for damages could arise from actions that occurred subsequent to the judgment in the original action holding that a state waives eleventh amendment immunity to claims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence holding that barring waiver by the state the eleventh amendment precludes federal courts from hearing state claims brought against state officials in their official capacities holding that the eleventh amendment protected the state from the risk of adverse judgments even though the state was fully indemnified by the federal government for any damages that would arise from that judgment holding that the eleventh amendment protects a state from suit by its own citizens