law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const, amend. XI. Courts have held this immunity to extend to “state agents and state instrumentalities.” Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429, 117 S.Ct. 900, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997). Though there are several well-established exceptions to this jurisdictional bar, as the district court noted, “None of the established exceptions ... permit private citizens to bring suit against state officials for injunctive or declaratory relief designed to remedy violations of state law.” District Court Opinion, 675 F.Supp.2d at 679. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Antrican v. Odom, 290 F.3d 178, 187
holding that sovereign immunity barred a suit against state officials when the relief sought required state officials to retroactively pay federal benefits holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that there is an exception to eleventh amendment immunity for actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials for alleged violations of federal law holding that the eleventh amendment bars retrospective declaratory relief against state officials holding an exception to eleventh amendment immunity inapplicable in a suit against state officials on the basis of state law