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 also
citation_a.identifier: 183 F.3d 563, 563
citation_a.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_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
citation_b.parenthetical: Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suits against state officials for injunctive relief
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”).