Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
2008 WL 5392320, 208 Haw. LEXIS 304 (2008); Gore v. Indiana Ins. Co., 376 Ill.App.3d 282, 315 Ill.Dec. 156, 876 N.E.2d 156, 165-66 (2007) (finding plaintiff lacked standing to bring declaratory judgment action because statute at issue did not confer private right of action); Nichols v. Kansas PAC, 270 Kan. 37, 11 P.3d 1134, 1146-47 (2000) (refusing to grant declaratory relief under consumer fraud statute because it contained no private right of action); Alliance for Metro. Stability v. Metro. Council, 671 N.W.2d 905, 916 (Minn.Ct.App.2003) (stating that where “there was no private right to enforce” the statute, the “Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act cannot create a cause of action that does not otherwise exist”); Delgado v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 66 A.D. 3d 607, 888 N.Y.S.2d 19, 21 (2009) . See also Boston Med. Ctr. v. Sec’y of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that petitioners did not possess a private right of action for injunctive and declaratory relief sought because only the citys housing official could enforce the citys housing maintenance code
B. holding that neither injunctive nor declaratory relief is available to private litigants under the fdcpa
C. holding that plaintiffs who sought injunctive relief under 42 usc  1983 could get same relief in a state court mandamus action
D. holding that a prisoners transfer mooted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
E. recognizing private right of action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.