With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". which remain good law in the Ninth Circuit: (1) that the failure to exhaust under § 1997e(a) does not deprive the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, see Rumbles, 182 F.3d at 1067-68 (citing Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 757, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975)); Wyatt, 280 F.3d at 1244 n. 8; and (2) that § 1997e(a) does not require California prisoners to also exhaust the state notice-of-claim procedures set forth in the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA) with respect to federal constitutional claims alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rumbles, 182 F.3d at 1069-70. Booth applies to Plaintiffs action despite the fact that it was decided after Plaintiff initiated suit. See Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Irvin, 161 F.Supp.2d at 1126 (applying Booth

A: holding that until the supreme court rules otherwise apprendi is not a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review  that was previously unavailable
B: holding that new rules of law apply to pending civil cases on direct appeal regardless of whether events predate announcement of rule
C: holding that when the supreme court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all civil cases still open on direct review and as to all events regardless of whether such events predate or postdate the supreme courts announcement of the rule
D: holding that the definition of assessed is a federal question not a state law question while maryland law establishes certain events with respect to the imposition of a tax federal law determines whether those events constitute an assessment
C.