state officers in their official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief. See, e.g., Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, — U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1132, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (“[Sjince our decision in Ex parte Young ..., we have often found federal jurisdiction over a suit against a state official when that suit seeks only prospective injunctive relief’.... (citation omitted)); Papasan v. Attain, 478 U.S. 265, 278, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 2940, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (“[Rjelief that serves directly to bring an end to a present violation of federal law is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment even though accompanied by a substantial ancillary effect on the state treasury.”); Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Dep’t of Transp., 96 F.3d 420, 423 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Cerrato, 26 F.3d at 973 (“It is well
holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief 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 precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature 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 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