Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): district courts and state courts have found judges to be judicially immune from criminal charges relating to the performance of judicial duties. See Chaplin, 54 F.Supp. at 934-35 (sustaining a judge’s plea at bar that he should be immune from indictment and prosecution for depriving a citizen of civil rights “under the color of any law” in judicial proceedings in his court); In re Petition of Dwyer, 486 Pa. 585, 406 A.2d 1355, 1360 (1979) (finding “that the petitioners are quasi-judicial and/or quasi-proseeutorial officers ... [and] in the absence of allegations of bad faith or corruption, the petitioners, in granting the extensions and variance, are insulated from criminal prosecution for the consequences of their actions”); Commonwealth v. Tartar, 239 S.W.2d 265, 266-67 (Ky.App.1951) (<HOLDING>); In re McNair, 324 Pa. 48, 187 A. 498, 502 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under  1983 (B) holding that the circuit court properly sustained a demurrer to the indictment of a judge for misfeasance in office because judges acting in their official capacities should be protected from harassment by either civil suits or criminal prosecutions (C) holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to liability under  1983 (D) holding that an action brought against the state officials in their official capacities was not properly removed to federal court because the district court lacked jurisdiction (E) holding that state employees acting in their official capacities are insulated from liability for money damages
Output (English): holding that state employees acting in their official capacities are insulated from liability for money damages