With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to consider it for that reason. See City of Newark v. Township of Hardyston, 285 N.J.Super. 385, 397, 667 A.2d 193 (App.Div.1995). We prefer, however, to decide the justiciability of plaintiffs claim under § 1983 on a different ground. Plaintiffs § 1983 claim is clearly barred by the statute of limitations even if we assume for the sake of argument that it is not precluded by res judicata. In Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that every § 1983 claim, whatever the facts on which it is based or the nature of the injury sustained, is subject to the statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims in the state where the federal cause of action arose. See Hondo, Inc. v. Sterling, 21 F.3d 775 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In New Jersey, that statute is N.J.S.A.

A: holding that federal courts apply the forum states personal injury statute of limitations for section 1983 claims
B: holding that a twoyear statute of limitations period applies to all  1983 actions brought in pennsylvania
C: holding that the statute of limitations for  1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims
D: holding that  1983 action against state tax assessor for denial of tax abatement was subject to indianas twoyear personal injury statute of limitations
D.