The court in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police (1989) 491 U.S. 58, 68-69 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2311, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 did state that the scope of the Eleventh Amendment and the scope of section 1983 were "certainly" separate issues. (Will, supra, at p. 66 109 S. Ct. at p. 2310.) But in holding states immune from section 1983 suits, the court noted that section 1983 was enacted in response to the inability or unwillingness of state authorities to protect civil rights. Therefore, although Congress did not establish federal courts as the exclusive forum for section 1983 suits, it plainly intended federal courts to have " 'a paramount role' " in enforcing the statute. (Will, supra, at p. 66 109 S. Ct. at p. 2309.) In light of that fact, the Will court concluded the fact that Congress did not override states' Eleventh Amendment immunity against suit in federal court under section 1983 indicated it also did not intend states to be subject to suit in state court under section 1983: "Given that a principal purpose behind the enactment of 1983 was to provide a federal forum for civil rights claims, and that Congress did not provide such a federal forum for civil rights claims against States, we cannot accept petitioner's argument that Congress intended nevertheless to create a cause of action against States to be brought in state courts, which are precisely the courts Congress sought to allow civil rights claimants to avoid through 1983." (Will, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 66 109 S. Ct. at p. 2310.)