icial to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he is not the State for sovereign- immunity purposes." Stewart, 131 S.Ct. at 1638; K.P., 627 F.3d at 124 (Ex pane Young "is based on the legal fiction that a sovereign state cannot act unconstitutionally[; t]hus, where a state actor en

has "some connection" with the enforcement of the disputed act. See Doe v. Jindal, No. 11-388, 2011 WL 3925042, at *5 (E.D. La. Sept. 7, 2011Xciting K.P., 627 F.3d at 124 (citing Ex pane Young, 209 U.S. at 160), and noting that the purpose of the connection requirement is to prevent litigants from mi