With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". analysis that defendants had a “special relationship” with plaintiffs and that plaintiffs’ evidence might suffice to show negligence. This argument ignores the district court’s finding that there was no evidence presented to show that defendants had any “actual knowledge of a substantial risk of harm.” Nor did plaintiffs present evidence showing that defendants could have reasonably foreseen that either Stevens or Lovick were likely to abuse the children. Plaintiffs’ failure to present such evidence means that they cannot satisfy the third prong of this test. Gloria and Terry remain entitled to immunity for the negligence claims brought against them in their official capacities. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99-100, 106, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Finally, as the district court held, Gloria

A: holding that in a suit against state officials in their official capacities monetary relief unlike prospective injunctive relief is generally barred by the eleventh amendment
B: holding an exception to eleventh amendment immunity inapplicable in a suit against state officials on the basis of state law
C: holding that barring waiver by the state the eleventh amendment precludes federal courts from hearing state claims brought against state officials in their official capacities
D: holding that such claims however cannot be brought directly against the state or a state agency but only against state officials in their official capacities
C.