Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Lewis v. Woods, 848 F.2d 649, 652 (5th Cir.1988); and Simmons v. McElveen, 846 F.2d 337, 339 (5th Cir.1988). 169 . See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1205, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989); Colle v. Brazos County, 981 F.2d at 245-46; Rhyne v. Henderson County, 973 F.2d at 392; and Benavides v. County of Wilson, 955 F.2d at 972-73. 170 . Id. 171 . See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Texas, 916 F.2d at 286. 172 . See Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board, 118 F.3d 1047, 1051 n. 1 (5th Cir.1997); and Chrissy F. by Medley v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare, 925 F.2d 844, 849 (5th Cir.1991). 173 . See DSC Communications v. Next Level Communications, 107 F.3d 322, 328 (5th Cir.1997); and Wallace v. Texas Tech University, 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 n. 3 (5th Cir.1996), (<HOLDING>). 174 . See Wallace v. Texas Tech University, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature (B) holding that injunctive relief was unwarranted when the jurys award already included prospective relief (C) holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief (D) holding that a class of juveniles had standing to seek injunctive relief in federal court against future interrogations by a police squad because of the strong likelihood that the challenged interrogation methods would be used again (E) holding that prospective injunctive relief is appropriate in a federal civil rights action only if a reasonable likelihood exists the plaintiff will again be subjected to the unconstitutional actions
Output (English): holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief