they will require time, patience, and the skills of specially trained teachers. That the programs are also ‘compensatory’ in nature does not change the fact that they are part of a plan that operates prospectively to bring about the delayed benefits of a unitary school system. We therefore hold that such prospective relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 290, 97 S.Ct. 2749. The facts and relief sought in Milliken are clearly distinguishable from those at hand and thus, the Court is not persuaded that the holding supports Plaintiffs’ claims herein. To the extent Plaintiffs seek monetary relief against Defendants acting in their official capacity as agents of the State, such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Fulton v. Goord, 591 F.3d 37, 45 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). 2. Injunctive Relief
holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief 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 eleventh amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities 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