465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 908, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). In addition, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that Congress did not intend for Section 1983 to overcome the sovereign immunity of states embodied in the Eleventh Amendment and therefore states and their arms are not “persons” who can be held liable under Section 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-67, 70, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309-10, 2311-12, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). With regard to state officials, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court that seek damages or other remedies that have the effect of providing retroactive monetary relief, but it does not bar suits in federal court that only see 2d 20 (1994); Robinson v. Court of Common Pleas, 827 F.Supp. 1210, 1211 (E.D.Pa.1993) (<HOLDING>). Given this protection, the Supreme Court of
holding california school district a state agency for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that the eleventh amendment did not apply to a compact clause entity recognizing the irony that a state officials conduct may be considered  state action for fourteenth amendment purposes yet not for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment