With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Amendment bars suits against a State by citizens of that same State in federal court,” citing Papasan v. Attain, 478 U.S. 265, 276, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). Although the bar of the Eleventh Amendment to suits against the state itself “ ‘exists whether the relief sought is legal or equitable,’ ” Williams, 973 F.2d at 600 (quoting Papasan, 478 U.S. at 276, 106 S.Ct. 2932), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[o]f course, legal fictions have also eroded Eleventh Amendment immunity by, among other things, permitting suits against state officials for injunctive and prospective relief.” Thomas, 50 F.3d at 505 (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663-64, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)); see also Gliek v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 540 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). b. Suit “against” the “state” In Thomas, the

A: holding that the question of whether a municipal official is a policymaking official is a matter of state law to be decided by the court
B: holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983
C: recognizing the exception for suits against state officials for injunctive relief citing pennhurst 465 us at 104 104 sct 900 and ex parte young 209 us 123 28 sct 441 52 led 714 1908 and explaining that this exception was based on the theory that because a state is without power to authorize a state official to act in violation of federal law any state official taking such actions is acting beyond his official authority and is thereby stripped of his official or representative character  quoting pennhurst 465 us at 104 104 sct 900
D: holding that title ii ada suits and rehabilitation act suits for prospective injunctive relief may be brought under ex parte young against state officers in their official capacities
C.