Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the injury became manifest. In the alternative, he asserts that the side effects resulting from the castration represent an injury that is “separate and distinct” from the original mutilation and, accordingly, the cause of action did not accrue until discovery. Since we hold, infra, that Briley’s cause of action against those who participated in the “plea bargain” did not accrue until he discovered the fraud or could have done so in the exercise of reasonable diligence, we need not reach the merits of these assertions. 6 . We are aware of California Code of Civil Procedure § 352 which allows for tolling the limitations period on account of minority, insanity, and imprisonment, none of which, however, is relevant here. See Ney v. State of California, 439 F.2d 1285, 1287 (9th Cir. 1971) . 7 . Indeed, it was a concern for the remedial
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the threeyear statute of limitations applicable to  1983 actions in arkansas governed idea claims
B. holding that a twoyear statute of limitations period applies to all  1983 actions brought in pennsylvania
C. holding that in california the oneyear statute applies to a  1983 action
D. recognizing  3381 as the applicable statute of limitations for  1983 actions brought in california but nevertheless applying  3523 to a case where the plaintiff had been previously imprisoned
E. recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.