Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
out of the Commonwealth’s coffers. Consequently, we need not address the more nuanced issue of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Greenless v. Almond, 277 F.3d 601, 606-08 (1st Cir.2002) (explaining that Eleventh Amendment issues, like other constitutional issues, should be avoided whenever a case can be disposed of on other grounds); Parella v. Retirement Bd., 173 F.3d 46, 56-57 (1st Cir.1999) (similar). Thus, partial judgment will be entered DISMISSING the § 1983 claims against movants in their official capacities. However, we note that plaintiffs’ parallel action against them in their individual capacities is not barred by either the definition of “person” contained in § 1983 or the Eleventh Amendment. Cf. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30-31, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991) . Movants next argue that plaintiffs have
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that state officials may be personally liable for actions taken in their official capacity
B. holding that a state officer sued in his individual capacity may be held personally liable for damages under 42 usc  1983 based upon actions taken in his official capacity
C. holding that in a bivens action service upon employee in his official capacity does not amount to service in his individual capacity
D. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity
E. holding that state and its officers sued in their official capacity for damages are not persons suable under  1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.