he or she is not a named defendant. 7 . In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the Supreme Court established an exception to state sovereign immunity in federal actions where an individual brings an action seeking injunctive relief against a state official for an ongoing violation of law or the Constitution. 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>). 8 . Insofar as plaintiff may allege that the
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 such claims however cannot be brought directly against the state or a state agency but only against state officials in their official capacities 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 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