Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(“This Court is of the view that, with the exception of extreme cases where transfer or release might be a necessary remedy, most challenges to the constitutional adequacy of medical care should proceed as civil rights claims.... ”). The First Circuit’s ruling in Brennan v. Cunningham, that a prisoner’s claim for reinstatement in a halfway house/work release program could proceed as a habeas petition, supports this position. 813 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.1987). Therefore, Fox’s claim that his misclassification resulted in denial of transfer to a halfway house is more appropriately construed as a habeas petition. See Kane, 319 F.Supp.2d at 215 (treating an improperly filed habeas petition as if it were filed as a civil rights claim); see also Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301, 305 (9th Cir.1996) , vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 918, 117
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a court may construe a section 1983 complaint as a habeas petition and vice versa
B. holding that the district court erred in summarily dismissing a  1983 complaint that should have been brought as a habeas petition
C. holding 1 that the district court properly construed one  1983 claim as a habeas petition but improperly summarily dismissed it and 2 that the district court should have construed another  1983 claim as a habeas petition
D. holding that conditionsofconfinement claims must be brought in 42 usc  1983 civil rights complaint rather than in habeas petition
E. recognizing our ability to construe a pretrial habeas petition filed under  2254 as being brought under  2241
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.