present case. Such a waiver must be explicit. See Santiago v. New York State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 945 F.2d 25, 31 (2d Cir.1991). There is no waiver in New York law, nor in any documents submitted to this Court. Furthermore, in his appellate brief, Tornheim fails even to allege that the State has somehow consented to suit. Additionally, we find unavailing Tornheim’s argument that, because he is challenging the constitutionality of State statutes, his claim escapes the Eleventh Amendment bar. Tornheim cites several Supreme Court decisions to support his argument, including Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 102-03, 104 S.Ct. 900 (discussing Eleventh Amendment implications where state officials act ultra vires their authority), Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (<HOLDING>), and Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct.
holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature holding that injunctive relief was unwarranted when the jurys award already included prospective relief holding that plaintiffs who sought injunctive relief under 42 usc  1983 could get same relief in a state court mandamus action