not preliminary, injunction, any injunctive -relief will not be awarded until the conclusion of this case. At that time, Nicholson will have concluded his prosecution of this case and any order that defendants Lenc-zewski, Doherty and Damiani not impair his ability to prosecute this case will be moot. Accordingly, this request also is denied. Finally, Nicholson seeks declaratory relief in the form of statements that the conduct of various defendants violated his rights. The Supreme Court has held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a retrospective declaration of a violation of federal law where there is “no claimed continuing violation of federal law.” Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 73,106 S.Ct. 423, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985); see also Ippolito v. Meisel, 958 F.Supp. 155 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, all claims for injunctive relief and
holding that eleventh amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief holding that in a suit against state officials in their official capacities monetary relief unlike prospective injunctive relief is generally barred by the eleventh amendment holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature