official capacity as members of the Louisiana Air National Guard, which was in turn acting under color of state law. 10 . The Court also notes that, in their opposition to the State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs concede that Thomas is a “state police officer.” Rec. Doc. 51, p. 29. 11 . Although this issue was not raised by the parties, the Court also notes that according to "long and clearly established Supreme Court precedent ... neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are 'persons’ under § 1983,” and thus neither a State nor its officials are amenable to suit under §§ 1983, 1985, or 1986. Fairley v. Stalder, 294 Fed.Appx. 805, 808-809 (5th Cir.2008); Bryant v. Military Dept. of State of Miss., 381 F.Supp.2d 586, 592 (S.D.Miss.2005) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Plaintiffs’ official ca pacity claims
holding that claims under  1983 1985 and 1986 are barred for the further reason that these statutes create rights solely against persons and a state is not considered a person under these statutes holding that these statutes are not intended to create a duty where none exists but to preserve any that do exist holding housing statutes create no rights in tenants for purposes of section 1983 holding these two statutes are not criminal offenses and only affect sentencing holding state is not a proper defendant under  1985