directly affect a contract or property right of the State,” Mitchell, 598 So.2d at 806, whether the defendant is simply a “conduit” through which the plaintiff seeks recovery of damages from the State, Barnes v. Dale, 530 So.2d 770, 784 (Ala.1988), and whether “a judgment against the officer would directly affect the financial status of the State treasury,” Lyons, 858 So.2d at 261. Moreover, we note that claims against state officers in their official capacity are “functionally equivalent” to claims against the entity they represent. Hinson v. Holt, 776 So.2d 804, 810 (Ala.Civ.App.1998).... In this case, the commissioner represents [the Department of Corrections], which, as a department of the State, is entitled to sovereign immunity. Rodgers v. Hopper, 768 So.2d 963, 968 (Ala.2000) (<HOLDING>). “ ‘The issue presented in this case is
holding that  14 prohibits the awarding of costs against the state as a defendant recognizing that the most important factor in determining whether a governmental entity is entitled to eleventh amendment immunity is whether a judgment against it would be paid from the state treasury holding that the commission is a commonwealth agency entitled to sovereign immunity holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding that doc is entitled to sovereign immunity under  14 because a judgment against it would be paid from the treasury of the state