Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
sanction when a plaintiff tries to deceive the district court by falsifying an IFP application. Thomas, 288 F.3d at 306-07; Mathis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 547 (7th Cir.1998). Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, and courts depend on the plaintiffs honesty in assessing her ability to pay. Abusing this privilege warrants dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for lying, and we therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Greviskes v. Univs. Research Ass’n, Inc., 417 F.3d 752, 754-59 (7th Cir.2005) (upholding dismissal with prejudice where plaintiff had assumed identity of former coworker and faxed to former employer a fraudulent request for coworker’s payroll records); Dotson v. Bravo, 321 F.3d 663, 668-69 (7th Cir.2003) ; Thomas, 288 F.3d at 306-07 (upholding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district court possessed the inherent judicial authority to empanel a resentencing jury on remand from  reversal of the respondents enhanced sentence and because the district court erred by failing to recognize that it possessed this inherent judicial authority boehl reversed and remanded for the district courts discretionary determination of whether to exercise that authority
B. recognizing a trial courts inherent authority to dismiss a cause of action with prejudice for violations of court orders
C. recognizing inherent power of federal district court to sanction conduct abusive of judicial process
D. holding that district courts possess the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute with or sans notice to the parties
E. recognizing district courts inherent authority to dismiss with prejudice for abuse of judicial process
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.