Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
but this does not mean that he is incapable of alleging facts which would merit legal relief. In interpreting which claims can be dismissed as "clearly baseless" under § 1915(d), the Neitzke Court referred to a "fantastic or delusional scenario," not a "fantastic or delusional” person. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. 3 . Hudson negates the dicta in Miller, 948 F.2d at 1567, where we stated that the Wilson v. Seiter, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement cases applies as well to nonemergency excessive force claims. 4 . Moreover, the allegations may state a claim under a substantive due process analysis. See Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S.Ct. 668, 88 L.Ed.2d 677 (1986) . See also McGill, 944 F.2d at 347-49
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that mere neglect for prisoners safety does not amount to a substantive due process violation implying that intent to do harm would be an abuse of government power and amount to a substantive due process violation
B. holding that government actor must intentionally abuse his or her power as a state official to harm state employee in order to sustain substantive due process violation
C. recognizing a plaintiffs  1988 claim predicated on an alleged violation of his substantive due process rights
D. recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim
E. holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.