the Cabinet and the individual defendants in their official capacities, this Court must first determine that it has jurisdiction to consider the appeal. In this case, the state court dismissed the Cabinet and the two individual defendants in their official capacities on sovereign immunity grounds. The state court did not dismiss the case against the individual defendants in their individual capacities. After the state court’s dismissal, the two remaining defendants removed the case to the federal district court. The federal district court dismissed the claims against the remaining two defendants. The plaintiffs then appealed all of the dismissals. Therefore, the following discussion about sovereign immunity only applies to the state court’s dismissal of three defenda L.Ed. 714 (1908) (<HOLDING>). While these officials are generally protected
holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities holding officials in their individual capacities may  be able to assert personal immunity defenses including qualified immunity that are not available in officialcapacity suits holding that title ii ada suits and rehabilitation act suits for prospective injunctive relief may be brought under ex parte young against state officers in their official capacities holding that eleventh amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity 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