Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
does not state an actionable claim for a deprivation of equal protection under the ADA. See Manning v. N.M. Energy, Minerals & Natural Res. Dep’t, 2006-NMSC-027, ¶ 45, 140 N.M. 528, 144 P.3d 87 (“The ADA provides [a] remedy . . . when a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving an individual of . . . equal protection[.]”); Fofey v. Horton, 1989-NMSC-061, ¶ 8, 108 N.M. 812, 780 P.2d 638 (stating that an equal protection claim requires the plaintiff to allege or otherwise demonstrate that the at-issue conduct constituted impermissible state action). {37} Furthermore, the district court’s mere adjudication of Mr. Firstenberg’s lawsuit does not constitute “state action” within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. See King v. King, 174 P.3d 659, 671 (Wash. 2007) (en banc) . Insofar as the United States Supreme Court in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that consensual policecitizen encounters do not implicate constitutional protections
B. recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify
C. recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights
D. recognizing that a state courts adjudication  of private rights is not sufficient state action in the sense necessary to implicate constitutional protections
E. holding that where statutory remedies exist private employees do not have a private cause of action for violation of state constitutional rights
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.