With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that even assuming, arguendo, that defendants’ failure to oppose Keosay’s reduced bail bond increased the danger of significant harm to Ammy, the defendants’ conduct, when viewed in total, was not conscience shocking such as to constitute a violation of substantive due process. Finally, the court concludes that the County defendants are entitled to assert prosecutorial immunity from plaintiff Sophapmysay’s lawsuit. Therefore, the County defendants’ and defendant Driebilbus’s respective motions for summary judgment are granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . Although the complaint refers to defendant Lori Limits, "Limits’s” actual name is Lori Limoges. Therefore, the court will use Limoges actual name in this opinion but will continue to use "Lori Limits” in the caption to t (1st Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 828, 107 S.Ct. 107, 93

A: holding that private attorney who acted as courtappointed counsel for child in state juvenile delinquency proceedings was not acting under color of state law
B: holding that private doctor under contract with a state prison to provide medical care to prisoners acted under color of state law when he treated inmate
C: holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability
D: holding that to prevail on a  1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law in other words that there was state action
A.