With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Heck would have, in one fell swoop, barred virtually any § 1983 claim alleging constitutional violations occurring in prior judicial proceedings, including many substantive and procedural due process violations. Moreover, the opinion in Heck made clear that the favorable-termination requirement was being imposed in reliance on "the hoary principle that civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.” 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S.Ct. at 2372 (emphasis added). 11 . While the “legality of extradition” may not be contested, our holding did not intend to preclude appropriate § 1983 actions challenging alleged violations of federal rights during extradition, whether or not the extradition itself was legal. See Crumley, 620 F:2d at 483 (<HOLDING>). 12 . The opinion is far from a model of

A: recognizing cause of action
B: recognizing negligence cause of action for failure to maintain medical records preservation of which was required by statute
C: holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action
D: recognizing a cause of action under  1983for failure to provide an opportunity to challenge an extradition by writ of habeas corpus
D.