Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Attorney General filed an application to intervene in the federal case and requested that the case be dismissed on a number of grounds, including the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Thereafter, without ruling on the merits of the Attorney General’s application to intervene, the District Court granted judgment to all of the defendants on Eleventh Amendment grounds, dismissed the case, and denied the application to intervene as moot. AmerenUE appeals the dismissal of its suit. We review a district court’s dismissal of an action on Eleventh Amendment grounds de novo. Allen v. Purkett, 5 F.3d 1151, 1153 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 829, 115 S.Ct. 100, 130 L.Ed.2d 49 (1994). AmerenUE urges that under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (<HOLDING>), its action against the individual defendants 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law (B) holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities (C) holding that the eleventh amendment protects both states and state officials acting in their official capacity from suits brought pursuant to 42 usc  1983 (D) holding that in a suit against state officials in their official capacities monetary relief unlike prospective injunctive relief is generally barred by the eleventh amendment (E) holding that eleventh amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity
Output (English): holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities