Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
remand, it should first be determined whether the actions the [plaintiffs] allege Anderson to have taken are actions that a reasonable officer could have believed lawful. If they are, then Anderson is entitled to dismissal prior to discovery. ... If they are not, and if the actions Anderson claims he took are different from those the [plaintiffs] allege (and are actions that a reasonable officer could have believed lawful), then discovery may be necessary before Anderson’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds can be resolved. Of course, any such discovery should be tailored specifically to the question of Anderson’s qualified immunity. 483 U.S. at 641, 646-47, n. 6, 107 S.Ct. at 3039, 3042, n. 6. See also Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1463 n. 11 (3d Cir.1992) ; Pfeiffer v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 929
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the availability of summary judgment based on absolute prosecutorial immunity
B. holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity
C. holding that absolute prosecutorial immunity extends to civil forfeiture proceedings
D. holding failure to turn over brady material after prosecutorial phase of case had begun was covered by absolute prosecutorial immunity
E. holding that the considerations underlying absolute prosecutorial immunity at common law dictate the same absolute immunity under  1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.