Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
successive petition restrictions). Alternatively, the statute of limitations may be a non-issue because the administrative decision to confine a prisoner to IAS is usually not a discrete one-time act, but a continuing administrative process subject to regular and periodic review. In this case, the Court can pretermit the issue because the petitioner is not entitled to habeas review, regardless of the applicability of the statute of limitations. 3 . For instance, as discussed at the close of this order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has concluded that a pet r.1996) (post-AEDPA decision holding its presumption-of-correctness principles apply to prison administrative body imposing disciplinary penalties); Hanson v. Heckel, 791 F.2d 93, 96 (7th Cir.1986) ; Hundley v. McBride, 908 F.Supp. 601, 602
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no protected liberty interest in the restoration of goodtime credits forfeited for disciplinary infractions under an older statutory scheme
B. holding  1983 suit seeking restoration of sentence credits properly construed as  2254 petition
C. holding that a prisoner who challenged prison procedures used to deny him goodtime credits and not actual denial of those credits stated a cognizable claim under  1983
D. holding habeas petition challenging denial of custody credits is not related to the conditions of  confinement and was properly brought in the district of conviction
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.