Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(“[I]f a state allows petitioners to file second or subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief, federal courts should not undermine the state’s decision by refusing to toll the one-year period of limitation” while the petition is pending.). Washington permits a prisoner to file a petition based on newly discovered evidence outside the ordinary limitations period, as long as the prisoner acts with due diligence; Dictado filed his petition with due diligence after obtaining what he claimed was newly discovered evidence; Washington permitted it to be filed and considered it on the merits. Thus, the petition must be deemed “properly filed” and Dictado should be permitted to file his federal petition in district court. 1 . See, e.g., Lovasz v. Vaughn, 134 F.3d 146, 147 (3d Cir.1998) ; Patterson v. Director, Virginia Dep’t of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit was properly filed
B. holding that third state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed
C. holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed
D. holding that although louisiana court held postconviction petition untimely filed statutory exceptions to filing requirement rendered petition properly filed for purposes of  2244d
E. holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application  without regard to the merits of the petition
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.