Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
law claims against state officials, regardless of an otherwise-valid pendent jurisdiction claim. “[A] claim that state officials violated state law in carrying out their official responsibilities is a claim against the State that is protected by the Eleventh Amendment .... this principle applies as well to state-law claims brought into federal court under pendent jurisdiction.” Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 121, 104 S.Ct. 900. Nor does their request for declaratory relief save plaintiffs’ state law claims. “[I]t is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law.” Id. at 106, 104 S.Ct. 900; see also Benning v. Bd. of Regents of Regency Universities, 928 F.2d 775, 778 (7th Cir.1991)  Counts Four and Five of the Complaint are
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a declaratory judgment by a federal court based on state law would constitute an endrun around pennhurst that is equally forbidden by the eleventh amendment
B. holding that state defendant waived eleventh amendment immunity to a federal claim by removing to federal court
C. holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal jurisdiction when a plaintiffs suit in federal district court is at least in part a forbidden de facto appeal of a state court judgment and an  issue in that federal suit is inextricably intertwined with an issue resolved by the state court judicial decision from which the forbidden de facto appeal is taken
D. holding that there is an exception to eleventh amendment immunity for actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials for alleged violations of federal law
E. holding that state did not waive eleventh amendment immunity by removing case to federal court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.