Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 402, 74 L.Ed.2d 225, 228 (1982). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Cal. Civ.Code § 52.1 claims are involved in the appeal because they, like the § 1983 claims, require finding a violation of constitutional rights. Defendants conclude that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Cal. Civ.Code § 52.1 claims against Appellant Defendants. California Civil Code § 52.1 claims are not subject to qualified immunity. See e.g., Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1072 (9th Cir.2009) (“California law is ... clear that qualified immunity of the kind applied to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not apply to actions brought under [Cal. Civil Code § 52.1].”); Venegas, 153 Cal.App.4th at 1248, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 . Defendants appeal the Court’s denial of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that preclusion rules apply in 1983 actions
B. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
C. holding that qualified immunity under  1983 does not apply to actions brought under  521
D. holding that preclusion rules apply in section 1983 actions
E. holding that in actions brought under 42 usc  1983 federal courts apply the states statute of limitation for personal injury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.