Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the same reasons set forth in the District Court’s opinion, we reject Bailey-El’s contention that personal jurisdiction exists with respect to the USP Lee defendants. As the District Court correctly noted, there is no provision for nationwide sendee of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and none of the USP Lee defendants has sufficient “minimum contacts” with New Jersey to confer personal jurisdiction. The District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Bailey-El’s complaint against Harrell Watts, the National Inmate Appeals Administrator for the BOP, holding that Watts enjoyed quasi-judicial immunity. Bailey-El argues that the Dis trict Court should have conducted a qualified immunity analysis under Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 206-07, 106 S.Ct. 496, 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985) . We need not decide whether the doctrine of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that prison disciplinary hearing committee members are entitled to qualified immunity
B. holding that even if the prison disciplinary committee failed to follow a state administrative regulation requiring the committee to convene within eight calendar days after commission of prison offense or its discovery the noncompliance did not of itself violate due process
C. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
D. holding that a prison disciplinary committee violated inmates rights to procedural due process by refusing to call their witnesses even though the disciplinary hearing took place in the aftermath of a riot and the resulting disciplinary caseload was ex tremely heavy
E. holding that prison guards who are employees of a private prison management firm are not entitled to a qualified immunity from suit brought by prisoners under  1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.