Henry v. Texas Tech Univ., 466 F.Supp. 141, 144-146 (N.D.Tex.1979)). The Eleventh Amendment bars any claims brought against á state or state agency unless Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity or the state has expressly waived its immunity to suit in federal court. Pennhurst St. Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 907-08, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). Congress must make its intention to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity “unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.” Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3147, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985). Congress has not unequivocally expressed-its intention to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity from claims brought pursuant to RICO. See Bair v. Krug, 853 F.2d 672, 674-75 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Molina v. New York, 956 F.Supp. 257, 260
holding inter alia in action alleging civil rico claims that appellants had no argued or proffered authority that congress had overriden eleventh amendment immunity holding that in enacting title vii congress abrogated eleventh amendment immunity holding that congress exceeded its authority under  5 of the fourteenth amendment in attempting to abrogate the states eleventh amendment immunity in adea suits holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted holding that congress did not properly abrogate states eleventh amendment immunity from suits under the patent act