Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
utility which here provides both regulated (interLATA service) and deregulated (PBX and software) services. Sprint’s regulated service is not at issue in this case. Hence, the PUC has no jurisdiction here over the DOC, and its jurisdiction over Sprint is not implicated. A. Jurisdiction Over the DOC We begin by noting that the Safebloek system was provided as a privilege to inmates for the purpose of making personal telephone calls. Powell does not argue, and this court has never held, that inmates have a constitutional right to use the phone for personal and social purposes. Although prisoners do have a right of access to the courts, which can include telephonic access upon occasion, such access is not at issue in this case. See, e.g., Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 582-85 (10th Cir,1980). The record in this case indicates that a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the total denial of all access to the law library for seven months violated the plaintiffs constitutional right of access to the courts
B. recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings
C. holding that reasonable access includes general facility access without notice and patient access with twentyfour hour notice
D. holding that prisoners have a constitutional right to meaningful access to courts and examining the facility as a whole to determine whether such access was sufficient
E. holding that a plaintiff has no absolute unconditional right of access to the courts and no constitutional right of access to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.