With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". consistently held that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). “State immunity extends to state agencies and to state officers who act on behalf of the state.” Burnette v. Carothers, 192 F.3d 52, 57 (2d Cir.1999). “Thus, when the state is the real party in interest, the Eleventh Amendment generally bars federal court jurisdiction over an action against a state official acting in his or her official capacity.” Burnette, 192 F.3d at 57. However, more than one hundred years ago, the Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (<HOLDING>). The doctrine of Ex Parte Young “applies only

A: holding that suits against state officers rather than against state itself are permitted when seeking prospective but not compensatory or other retrospective relief
B: holding state statute that prevented  1983 suits seeking damages relief against correctional officers to be preempted
C: holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities
D: holding that eleventh amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity
A.