Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
clearly established law. See Levine v. City of Alameda, 525 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir.2008) (“Under the defense of qualified immunity, a government official is immune from civil damages unless his conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known”); see also Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85 (clarifying that sincerity of prisoner’s religious beliefs, not objective doctrinal centrality of beliefs, determines whether Free Exercise Clause applies). The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on Campbell’s Equal Protection claim because Campbell did not present evidence indicating that he was similarly situated to inmates who were permitted to possess religious oil. See Gerber v. Hickman, 291 F.3d 617, 623 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) . Campbell’s remaining contentions are
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to assert a viable equal protection claim plaintiffs must first make a threshold showing that they were differently treated from others who were similarly situated to them
B. holding that equal protection claim by prisoner lacked merit where prisoner not similarly situated to others who were permitted to engage in relevant conduct
C. holding equal protection under the federal constitution applies to similarly situated persons
D. holding members of two distinct pension plans were not similarly situated for equal protection analysis
E. holding that caucasian employees who engaged in the same act as the plaintiff but it did not result in injury to others were not similarly situated
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.