Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
law only. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (“We conclude that Young ... [is] inapplicable in a suit against state officials on the basis of state law.”). Moreover, Acting Commissioner Mauriello is merely a co-defendant along with NJ DEP. Nothing about this suit suggests that it is aimed a Mauriello’s actions, apart from NJ DEP itself. See MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Bell Atlantic- Pennsylvania, 271 F.3d 491, 506 (3d Cir.2001) (“Young does not apply if, although the action is nominally against individual officers, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and the suit in fact is against the state.”) (citing Pennhurst); see also Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U.S. 47, 64 S.Ct. 873, 88 L.Ed. 1121 (1944) . Thus, Ex Parte Young does not apply. (2) Nor
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a damages suit against a state officer in his official capacity was barred because it was functionally a suit against the state
B. 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
C. 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
D. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state
E. holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.