Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as respondent [sic] superior.” It is clear from Sanderson’s complaint and it can not be seriously disputed that Sander-son’s claims against the defendants are for actions taken in their official capacities. [¶ 11] For purposes of valid service of process, suing state officials solely in their official capacities, as opposed to suing them in their individual or personal capacities, is tantamount to suing the State itself. See Livingood v. Meece, 477 N.W.2d 183, 189 (N.D.1991); see also N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-03(1) (stating an action for an injury proximately caused by alleged negligence, wrongful act, or omission of state employee occurring within the scope of the employee’s employment must be brought against the State). Cf. Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir.1999) ; Artis v. Francis Howell North Band Booster
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity
B. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office
C. holding a complaint against a public official or employee must explicitly state it as being brought against the person in the persons individual capacity or else the complaint will be construed as suing the person only in the persons official capacity
D. holding that a plaintiff who wishes to sue a state official in his personal capacity must so specify in her complaint so that if a plaintiffs complaint is silent about the capacity in which she is suing the defendant we interpret the complaint as including only officialcapacity claims
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.