the general principle of sovereign immunity [that] allows a suit for injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of a state official’s actions in enforcing state law under the theory that such a suit is not one against the State, and therefore not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” Ford v. Reynolds, 316 F.3d 351, 354-55 (2d Cir.2003). Under the doctrine, a suit may proceed against a state official in his or her official capacity, notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment, when a plaintiff “(a) alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and (b) seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.” See In re Deposit Ins. Agency, 482 F.3d 612, 618 (2d Cir.2007) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Santiago v. New York State Dep’t of Corr. Serv., 945 F.2d 25, 32 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 653, 94
holding that since damage claims in an article 78 proceeding may only be asserted against individuals in their official capacities the plaintiff could not have recovered damages against the education officials in their individual capacities and therefore cannot be barred by res judicata  holding that barring waiver by the state the eleventh amendment precludes federal courts from hearing state claims brought against state officials in their official capacities holding that neither a state agency nor its officials acting in their official capacities may be sued under section 1983 holding that an action brought against the state officials in their official capacities was not properly removed to federal court because the district court lacked jurisdiction holding that such claims however cannot be brought directly against the state or a state agency but only against state officials in their official capacities