claims against the State of Louisiana is GRANTED. Defendants’ request that the Court dismiss Hall’s Section 1983 claims against Jindal and Caldwell is DENIED. 2. Qualified Immunity In support of their motion, Jindal and Caldwell argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” James v. Dallas Hous. Auth., 526 Fed.Appx. 388, 391-392 (5th Cir.2013) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)); see also Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166-67, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Sanders-Burns v. City of Plano, 594 F.3d 366,
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 that government entities may not assert qualified immunity holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that 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 qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit