Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
officer was taking an interest in the plaintiff. Id. Here, no deputies under Sheriff Ball had ever engaged in sexually impermissible or suggestive conduct. And nothing in Fite’s record suggested that he had a proclivity to engage in sexually prurient behavior. As in Andrews, where we found no patently obvious need to train an officer not to rape young women even in the face of actual knowledge of deviant behavior, we do not believe that there is a patently obvious need to train an officer not to sexually assault women, especially where there is no notice at all that such behavior is likely. An objectively reasonable officer would know that it is impermissible to touch a detainee’s sexual organs by forcible compulsion. See Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1308 (10th Cir.1998) . Moreover, Fite himself acknowledged in his
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court was not persuaded that a plainly obvious consequence of a deficient training program would be the sexual assault of inmates and that specific or extensive training hardly seems necessary for a jailer to know that sexually assaulting inmates is inappropriate behavior
B. holding that even in absence of copy of written decision inmates affidavit and notations on grievance form provided trial court with information necessary to determine whether inmates suit was filed within statutory time period
C. holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury
D. holding that consent is not a defense to the charge of second degree assault where the assault occurred in the context of a prison fight between inmates
E. holding that district court erred in dismissing inmates complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when court did not address inmates allegation that prison officials failed to provide necessary grievance forms
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.