Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
potentially actionable claim against it — patent infringement — lies exclusively in federal court. In sum, the City argues that, because there is no possibility of liability against it if suit were ever filed in state district court, the state district court, likewise, has no jurisdiction over the Rule 202 petition. Even if we were to agree that the state district court would have no jurisdiction over the City for the claims that U.S. Filter seeks to investigate, the district court would have jurisdiction over Altivia. For example, if the depositions reveal facts constituting a civil conspiracy between the City and Altivia, U.S. Filter could pursue a claim against Altivia, even if the City were immune. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 30, 101 S.Ct. 183, 186-87, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980) ; B.K. v. Cox, 116 S.W.3d 351, 358-59
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity
B. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983
C. holding that immunity given judge under section 1983 does not inure to benefit of those accused of conspiring with him
D. holding that  1983 does not override states eleventh amendment immunity
E. holding that qualified immunity under  1983 does not apply to actions brought under  521
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.