Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
All Bonds (Special Documents of Title UCC § 7201, UCC § 7202, UCC § 8102 et seq) and-Accounts regards Me and My PERSON; wind-up the Ens Legis: WILLIAM FREDERICK KEMP JR. (UCC § 9307(h)).” As plaintiffs statement regarding this relief does not assert a claim for money damages, perhaps this is a request for declaratory or injunctive relief. The Federal Circuit has explained that the Court of Federal Claims “does not have general equity jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief.” Shemonsky v. United States, 215 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.1999) (upholding decision of the Court of Federal Claims that the court’s jurisdiction did not extend to injunctive or declaratory relief); see also Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2003); Choate v. United States, 60 F.3d 840 (Fed.Cir.1995) . As stated by the Federal Circuit: The Court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the tucker act does not provide a means by which the court of federal claims may grant injunctive or declaratory relief where the suit does not involve a preaward protest or the application of section 7428 of the internal revenue code
B. holding that the tucker act does not provide independent jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief in contractual dispute cases
C. holding that the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to grant nonmonetary relief in connection with contractor claims including claims requesting an interpretation of contract terms
D. holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over tax claims for declaratory or equitable relief
E. holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.