federal claims to satisfy the common nucleus of operative fact requirement. 3 . In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the Supreme Court held that Eleventh Amendment immunity was not available to state officials in suits seeking prospective injunctive relief for violations of federal law. 4 . Plaintiff Tinius argues that defendant Cherokee Mental Health Institute should be treated as a municipality and should therefore be subject to suit without consideration of sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Amendment extends to state agencies and departments and, subject to the Ex Parte Young doctrine, to state employees acting in their official capacities. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 123-24, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (<HOLDING>). However, the Eleventh Amendment generally
recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment holding that relief against county and state officers was barred by the eleventh amendment because the state funded and cooperated in operating the county program at issue recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions  recognizing that section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment