Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
77 F.Supp.3d at 1187-88, 2014 WL 7473806, at *27. These cases all stand for the same thing: at the pleading stage, the existence of a Monell policy is a “conclusion” to be built up to, rather than a “fact” to be baldly asserted. When there is no formal written policy and the § 1983 plaintiff is relying upon a practice or custom, some courts appear to look for a specific number of prior similar incidents — often saying that two or three instances will not suffice. See Wilson v. Cook Cnty., 742 F.3d 775, 780 (7th Cir.2014)(“Although this court has not adopted any bright-line rules for establishing what constitutes a widespread custom or practice, it is clear that a single incident — or even three incidents — do not suffice.”); Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1076 (8th Cir.1996); Eugene v. Alief Ind. Sch. Dist., 65 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a section 1983 plaintiff asserting police misconduct must allege a pattern of similar incidents in which citizens were injured or endangered by policyconsistent misconduct or that serious incompetence or misbehavior was general or widespread throughout the police force
B. holding that a finding of misconduct under section 44303626 requires intentional repeated instances of misconduct or violations of explicit policies after the employee has received warnings
C. holding that a refusal to make false statements that no misconduct occurred is a very different circumstance  than an affirmative statement of misconduct
D. recognizing that the court sanctions more harshly for cumulative misconduct than for isolated misconduct
E. holding that two instances of misconduct do not indicate a persistent and widespread pattern of misconduct that amounts to a city custom or policy of overlooking police misconduct
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.