context: Curiously, defendant commissioners do not explain why this court does not have federal question jurisdiction stemming from TDS's assertion of a violation of its federal due process rights coupled with its request for declaratory and injunctive relief. It is well established that a lack of adequate procedures by state officials may implicate federal due process rights.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suits against state officials for injunctive relief
citation_a.sentence: See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suits against state officials for injunctive relief); see also MCI Telecommunications, 183 F.3d at 563 (“suits against state officials seeking prospective equitable relief for ongoing violations of federal law are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under the Ex parte Young doctrine”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 183 F.3d 563, 563
citation_b.parenthetical: "suits against state officials seeking prospective equitable relief for ongoing violations of federal law are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under the Ex parte Young doctrine"
citation_b.sentence: See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suits against state officials for injunctive relief); see also MCI Telecommunications, 183 F.3d at 563 (“suits against state officials seeking prospective equitable relief for ongoing violations of federal law are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under the Ex parte Young doctrine”).