Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
counsel for indigent defendants at trial, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), and during their first appeal as of right, Douglas, 372 U.S. at 358, 83 S.Ct. 814, but refusing to extend that right to discretionary appeals. Wainwright v. Toma, 455 U.S. 586, 102 S.Ct. 1300, 71 L.Ed.2d 475 (1982); Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). No reasonable jurist, even in light of the dicta in Evitts, could have interpreted these cases as requiring the kind of relief that Pursell now seeks. Granted, there are cases imposing general requirements on states when they venture into areas where they are not constitutionally required to tread. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) . These cases were adequately summarized in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a state tort claim is a species of property protected by the due process clause
B. holding that the eighth amendment applies only after the state has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with the due process of law
C. holding that jury trial in civil cases is not so fundamental to the american system of justice as to be required of state courts by due process
D. recognizing that plaintiff can bring action under due process clause of state constitution
E. holding that although state is not required to operate welfare program it must do so in accordance with the due process clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.