Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the summary judgment motion, the district court recognized that Autrey could prevail on his claims of malicious prosecution and his Fourth Amendment claim of wrongful arrest only if the plaintiff could somehow establish that no probable cause for his prosecution had been established. Because a state-court judge had already determined that probable cause existed to bind Autrey over for trial, however, the district court determined that principles of collateral estoppel precluded the plaintiff from pursuing a second time an identical challenge to the quantum of evidence necessary to initiate a criminal prosecution. Additionally concluding that the plaintiff failed to make any showing “that Kennedy an 456 Mich. 365, 572 N.W.2d 603, 610 (1998) (Michigan tort of malicious prosecution) . When deciding what role the Michigan state
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that malicious prosecution plaintiff must show inter alia that criminal proceeding was initiated without probable cause
B. holding that a plaintiff in a retaliatory prosecution action must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for pressing the underlying criminal charge
C. holding that a malicious prosecution plaintiff must show inter alia that the criminal proceeding was initiated without probable cause
D. holding that the plaintiff must show that the person instituting or maintaining the prosecution lacked probable cause for bringing the action
E. holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.