Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
wit: that DHS improperly denied his naturalization application, that the removal proceedings were invalid, that DHS’s arrest and detention of him were unlawful, that DHS officials retaliated against him based First Amendment protected activity, that he should be readmitted to the United States and naturalized, and that his underlying conviction is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Abiodun, 2012 WL 3844912, at *24 (describing litigation history). Indeed, the Government here has filed a motion to dismiss that restates many, if not all, of the arguments it raised in Abiodun’s prior suits. Compare, e.g., Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, at 10-11 (Heck v. Humphrey bars Abiodun’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) with Abiodun v. United States, No. 07cv1713, 2007 WL 2782542, at *1 (D.Colo. Sept. 20, 2007) . Analysis An individual’s right to access to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that heck v humphrey bars abioduns claims under the ftca
B. holding that a prisoners claim under the ftca based on being imprisoned for an extra ten days did not call into question the conviction or sentence and was not barred by heck
C. holding that the plaintiffs ftca claims failed because the fbi agents were privileged to use reasonable force under texas law
D. holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims
E. holding that determination of timely filing of complaint under ftca was independent of the merits of plaintiffs ftca claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.