Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rights shall be liable in a suit for damages.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 919, 104 S.Ct. 2820, 81 L.Ed.2d 758 (1984) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). As this statement makes clear, the party from whom damages are sought must have acted under color of state law. Therefore, the relevant inquiry in Yanaki was whether the private defendants (the only parties sued) acted under color of law. We affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because we found that the plaintiffs had failed to allege sufficiently that the private defendants had acted under color of state law because the conduct of the private defendants in obtaining the relevant court orders could not be attributed to the state so as to satisfy the first part of the under-color-of-law test. See Yanaki, 415 F.3d at 1209-10 ; see also id. at 1211 (Holloway, J.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the involvement of the police in executing the courtordered search without more does not convert the private defendants abuse of state law into conduct attributable to the state for purposes of  1983 liability and because yanaki and moss allege nothing more than private misuse of state laws their compliant fails to satisfy the first part of the color of law test
B. holding that establishing the existence of an understanding among private parties and state actors for  1983 conspiracy purposes is really nothing more than another way to show state action by alleging a private partys connection to a state actor
C. holding that private misuse of a state statute does not describe conduct that can be attributed to the state
D. holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability
E. holding that to prevail on a  1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law in other words that there was state action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.