it is not at all clear that the plaintiffs’ claims in the Court of Claims would necessarily involve a determination of the validity or constitutionality of a statute or regulation. They allege that the Department’s pricing policy violates Illinois law. But we do not know what the Court of Claims considers a regulation, and the pricing policy in this case, which is not found in the Illinois Administrative Code, may or may not fall into that category. Finally, even if the plaintiffs are correct that the Court of Claims will not consider a claim based on the illegality of a prison policy, other Illinois courts can and will entertain such claims and may grant injunctive and declaratory relief. E.g., Hadley v. Dept. of Corrections, 362 Ill.App.3d 680, 298 Ill.Dec. 635, 840 N.E.2d 748 (2005) (<HOLDING>), aff'd 224 Ill.2d 365, 309 Ill.Dec. 296, 864
holding that a physician under contract with north carolina to provide medical services to prison inmates was a state actor for purposes of  1983 holding that copayment requirements for prison medical services is constitutionally permissible holding that inmates transfer mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief but that claims for monetary damages were not moot holding that prisoner copayment plan was not violative of the eighth amendment holding that injunctive relief was appropriate for challenge to validity of prison policy and that medical copayment charges for indigent inmates violated illinois law