Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1141, 119 S.Ct. 1032, 143 L.Ed.2d 41 (1999). Federal common law deprives me of the power to grant such relief, absent the consent of the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida. As Mr. Freeman fairly argues, the relief sought by the trustee in these three counts could disadvantage the other creditors of PRSI. Thus, it will be up to the appointing court for the PRSI receiver to determine whether the relief sought by the trustee in counts five through seven should be heard in this court. Rather than dismiss those three counts at this time, however, I shall stay temporarily any determination of those three claims and grant the trustee a limited opportunity to obtain state court leave to proceed. See Matter of NNLC Corp., 136 B.R. 611 (Bankr.D.Conn.1992) ; see also Matter of Linton, 136 F.3d at 545
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a mandatory prerequisite to a lawsuit under foia
B. holding that an adversary proceeding against a bank receiver is stayed pending exhaustion of administrative remedies
C. holding that proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary under section 1997ea
D. holding that while an original bankruptcy proceeding where the state is not named as a defendant is not a suit an adversary proceeding directly against the state would be
E. recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a  1983 action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.