Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to § 1983 does not expressly authorize suits for declaratory relief against judges. Instead, it implicitly recognizes that declaratory relief is available in some circumstances, and then limits the avail ability of injunctive relief to circumstances in which declaratory relief is unavailable or inadequate. The language is not an express authorization of declaratory relief, but simply a recognition of its availability or unavailability, depending on the circumstances, which the statute does not delineate. A review of the legislative history confirms this reading of the amendment. The Senate Report accompanying the amendment suggests that the amendment’s purpose was to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-43, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984) (<HOLDING>), not to alter the landscape of declaratory 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys fees awards are available under  1988 for frivolous actions (B) recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs (C) holding that judicial immunity was not a bar to awards of attorneys fees and costs or to demands for injunctive relief (D) holding plaintiff had no right to recover attorneys fees under declaratory judgments act because declarations requested no greater or different relief than claim for injunctive relief for constitutional violation (E) holding that the judicial immunity available to federal officers extends to section 1983 actions for declaratory and injunctive relief
Output (English): holding plaintiff had no right to recover attorneys fees under declaratory judgments act because declarations requested no greater or different relief than claim for injunctive relief for constitutional violation