With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". judgment was appropriate on the causation issue because the plaintiff “could not even raise[] a question of fact as to causation”). The district court found a causal connection by holding that since Fite would not have sexually assaulted Parrish if he knew he was committing a felony, that training on the contents of the law would have prevented the constitutional violation. Parrish, 2008 WL 4495704, at *3. While this finding may establish “but for” causation, it ignores the additional requirement that “ ‘the identified deficiency in [the county’s] training program ... be closely related to the ultimate injury.’ ” Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1076 (quoting City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 391, 109 S.Ct. 1197); see also Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 285, 100 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980) (<HOLDING>). As we have noted, in cases such as this where

A: holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
B: holding that a constitutional violation was too remote a consequence of the defendants action to hold them responsible under the federal civil rights law
C: recognizing an action for damages against unknown federal agents for the violation of constitutional rights
D: recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify
B.