Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. FDIC, 733 F.Supp. 1091, 1094 (N.D.Tex.1990) (Fitzwater, J.). 4 . “Suits against state officials in their official capacity are considered to be suits against the individual's office, and so are generally barred as suits against the state itself.” Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 n. 3 (5th Cir.1996) (citing Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2311-12, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989)). Although claims for prospective injunctive relief brought against state officials in their official capacity are not suits against the state, id., Gaines does not request such relief. 5 . In view of this holding, the court need not determine whether an educational opportunity is "property” under Texas state law. See teach v. FDIC, 860 F.2d 1266, 1274 n. 14 . 6 . The individual defendants move to dismiss
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that property is an inherently state lawrelated term and that courts should look to state law when applying rico
B. holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law
C. holding that when applying state law a federal court is bound to follow the highest court in the state
D. holding the court may look to state law for guidance where federal law is not fully developed
E. holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.