Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): unnecessary because § 1983 allows for injunctive relief against state officials, and when sued for prospective injunctive relief in his official capacity, a state officer is a “person” for the purposes of § 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304, citing Graham, 473 U.S. at 167 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3099 and Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 159-160, 28 S.Ct. 441. Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts in order to seek prospective injunctive relief must demonstrate, inter alia, that “a federal court decision is likely to redress the injury.” Deshawn E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340, 344 (2d Cir.1998), citing Northeastern Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 663, 113 S.Ct. 2297, 124 L.Ed.2d 586 (1993) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the class too imprecise and speculative to be certified (B) holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision (C) holding that in order to establish standing the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling must not be too speculative (D) holding that defendants claim that the cost of injunctive relief would exceed 75000 was too speculative (E) holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
Output (English): holding that defendants claim that the cost of injunctive relief would exceed 75000 was too speculative