relief in general, and nothing inadequate about how those procedures apply to those who seek access to DNA evidence.”). Third, such federal claims likely would be foreclosed under res judicata principles, see Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 487-88, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) (leaving open question of whether doctrine of res judicata forecloses litigation on elements of federal complaints at issue); Howard v. Whitbeck, 382 F.3d 633, 639 (6th Cir.2004) (stating that “even where a general constitutional attack is mounted, the state proceedings may foreclose the federal claim under the doctrine of res judicata”), and applicable immunity doctrines, see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Dixon v. Clem, 492 F.3d 665, 674 (6th
holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that an official capacity suit should be treated as a suit against the entity holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983 holding that a damages suit against a state officer in his official capacity was barred because it was functionally a suit against the state holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity