Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Michael Ray Rogers, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, his civil rights action alleging that the United States Congress violated the separation of powers doctrine by requiring prison staff to assess and collect prisoners’ district court filing fees in installments pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Cooper v. Pickett, 187 F.3d 616, 623 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm. Because the PLRA’s filing fee requirement is a procedural rule that does not infringe on the authority of the courts, the district court did not err by dismissing Rogers’ action. Cf. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1182 (9th Cir.1999) . Rogers’ contention that this court erred by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plras three strikes rule is a procedural rule that does not violate the separation of powers doctrine
B. recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers
C. recognizing separation of powers doctrine
D. recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine
E. holding that adam walsh act does not violate procedural due process require excessive bail or violate separation of powers
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.