Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Matter Jurisdiction A. Sovereign Immunity The United States Supreme Court has clearly held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity — embodied in the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution — is a constitutional limitation on the federal judicial power established in Article III, Section 2, in actions brought by a citizen against his own state. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). Specifically, the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars state agencies and state officials from being sued in their official capacities for monetary damages. Keenan v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 643 F.Supp. 324, 328 (D.D.C.1986) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury of Ind., 323 U.S. 459, 464, 65 S.Ct. 347, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945) (<HOLDING>)). While a state may waive its sovereign 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that when a state employee is sued in his official capacity the state is the real party in interest and as a result the eleventh amendment is implicated (B) holding suits against state officials for monetary damages impermissible where the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state rather than against the officer in his individual capacity (C) holding that when the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state the state is the real substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even though individual officials are nominal defendants (D) holding that when a state sues on behalf of its residents without a sovereign or quasisovereign interest it is only a nominal party and thus not the real party in interest (E) holding that sovereign immunity barred a suit against state officials when the relief sought required state officials to retroactively pay federal benefits
Output (English): holding suits against state officials for monetary damages impermissible where the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state rather than against the officer in his individual capacity