With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Attorney General chose to remove the case from state court, where it originated. In contrast, the elements required to show clear and voluntary action constituting a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity by a State defendant are absent here. Regarding MDOC, AmerenUE has not demonstrated that MDOC has the power to bring suit in federal court. Having this power is, under Lapides, a prerequisite for a state actor to have the ability to waive the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Even if MDOC has this power, it is clear that MDOC, which is a defendant in this lawsuit, has not voluntarily invoked federal jurisdiction by entering a general appearance and defending against AmerenUE’s suit. See, e.g., Fromm v. Comm’n of Veterans Affairs, 220 F.3d 887, 888-90 (8th Cir.2000) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, MDOC did assert the State’s

A: holding that state defendant waived eleventh amendment immunity to a federal claim by removing to federal court
B: holding that the conduct of an assistant attorney general of nebraska in answering a complaint and filing a counterclaim did not amount to waiver of the eleventh amendment
C: holding that there was no waiver where attorney general appeared in federal court answered a complaint responded to discovery and later moved to amend its answer to the complaint in order to raise states eleventh amendment immunity
D: holding the language of  5518e insufficient as a waiver of eleventh amendment immunity to federal claims in federal court
C.