Whether state officials can be sued in their individual capacities for alleged criminal acts under Ex Parte Young

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR WRIT OF CERTORAI 1.) It is long settled that a Complaint against State Officials is not a Complaint against the State, but that it is in-fact against the Officials, e.g., as settled by Ex Parte Young; or Pennhurst State Sch. v. Halderman, which cites Young in such a way as to add clarity to Young; and more. Yes, this issue is settled...which is why I am simply asking for a Summary Reversal. Background In my I filed a Complaint against 6 Arizona State AGO Officials for injuries they caused by a series of documented Criminal Acts they committed against me as they “exonerated” the most powerful law firm in Arizona (see F'). I also named the State as a Defendant for its Respondeat superior liabilities for the 6 Officials having injured me, and it seems obvious that those 6 Officials pierced/voided the State’s immunity. The law firm (Snell & Wilmer), is where the AGO’s then Chief Prosecutor’s son is an attorney...and The Firm is AG Mark Bmovich’s political sponsor (Snell was working for the AGO during relevant times these 6 in-fact Defendants committed these Criminal Acts). Coincidentally, I’m sure, is that Snell is the Governor’s personal, and gubernatorial law firm; and the Governor’s in-house chief counsel is from Snell; and etc (as I am sure it is another coincidence the Governor wouldn’t act to help me [which see more about later]). But as the Arizona AGO does not allow their Officials being Served Complaints at their offices...not even for official acts committed while on the job...and, as they are AGO Officials, their home addresses are hidden from the public...I was blocked (rather, my licensed process server was blocked) from being able to Serve/even find these 6 Officials away from their offices (which see more detail for later). Isn’t the Arizona AGO clever, as they prevent its Citizens from access to offending AGO Officials...thereby forcing its Citizens to sue the State...so the State can then hide behind the 11th Amendment...isn’t this a violation of Due Process, if not a fraud scheme? I even tried Effective Service, as these 6 Officials would have known the State and AGO had been Served (which see more detail for later). But the District Court denied my Motion. Therefore, I had to Amend the 6 Officials out of my first Complaint (see F? on pg ii), leaving only the State for its Respondeat superior liabilities...but my Complaint is in-fact against the 6 Officials who are the ones who injured me by their documented Criminal Acts...so I said to the District Court Judge in this Complaint that if | needed to Amend the 6 back in, that he please issue an Order for the US Marshalls to Serve the 6 as no one but the Marshalls will be able find them...but my Judge did not respond (which see more detail for later). It is clear the injuries in my Complaint were caused by and is in-fact against these 6 Officials, and not the State itself (except for the State’s Respondeat superior liabilities). il I do not understand why the Ninth Circuit allowed these 6 State Officials to benefit from Arizona State immunity, as the Ninth itself has made it clear that those that violate the law (or even just act incompetently!) do not have immunity. See Lanuza v. Love, 1535408 US 9th Circuit (that egregious behavior is reason to pierce/void immunity): “The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying qualified immunity to ICE Assistant Chief Counsel Jonathan Love because qualified immunity was not meant to protect those who are “plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Neither the Ninth Circuit panel nor the District Court has ever said a single word about these 6 Officials’ documented Criminal Acts...although I have pleaded and begged for them to confront the Officials’ acts (documented by the Officials’ own records). Even the Arizona Supreme Court has riled that the State and its Officials should be held liable/not benefit from immunity when the State or its Officials commit questionable acts beyo